cl-agenda.pdf · information about procedures for the ordinary meeting of council open question...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 17 July 2007

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Council meetings are scheduled to commence at 6.30pm. However, Open Question Time is held for a maximum of 10 minutes if required, from 6.30pm prior to the commencement of the meeting. Questions from members of the gallery may be directed to the Mayor on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 6.30pm and 8.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. The Committee of the Whole is delegated authority to resolve items by majority vote. Supper Adjournment At approximately 8.30pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break.

AGENDA - ORDINARY MEETING 1. NATIONAL ANTHEM, PRAYER AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS

PEOPLE 2. WELCOME TO VISITORS 3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST 6. MAYORAL MINUTES 7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 3 July 2007

8. DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING REPORTS

EP/140 8 Ryan Avenue.............................................................................................1 EP/141 6 Calliope Street .........................................................................................21 EP/142 32 Raglan Street.........................................................................................28 EP/143 19 Rickard Avenue .....................................................................................58 EP/144 719 Military Road (Mosman RS Club) ........................................................76 EP/145 5 Raglan Street...........................................................................................82 EP/146 10 Milner Street ..........................................................................................90 EP/147 14 Amaroo Crescent.................................................................................108 EP/148 11A Badham Avenue................................................................................138 EP/149 3 Raglan Street.........................................................................................156 EP/150 Development Applications ........................................................................175 EP/151 Development Control Unit ........................................................................178 EP/152 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses .........................................179

9. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Report to Ordinary Meeting of Council – 17 July 2007 Page 1

EP/140 8 Ryan Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2006.204.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new

dwelling, swimming pool and landscape works REPORTING OFFICER: Kara Krason, Consultant Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 19 June 2006 (Downtime 125 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Refusal Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

12

5

18

3

16 14

1A

1

25

16 14 12 10 86

42

10

14A

12

9A9 7A7

238 240 242

233 235 23

225

1111A

18 1614 12A

9

26B

2422

11A 117

234

221 223

236A 236

225 231

3028

26

3634

15

26A26

19

30 28

17 15

2

4

15 217

1B

228

29

34

25

32

23 21

3

5 31

1A

1

511

79A

1012

17

15

13

9 7

4

2

24

8

9

22 20

29

27A

2922

27

18

3836

2

31

4

1A 29A

4240

6

27

10

7

6

8

1

14

53

12

3

119

27

16

46

31 19

4341

3937

45

11

35

4

33

331A

186

31

5A

1412

10 1

58 56 54

81

35

85

2

12 10 10 614

29

18 16

77A79

72

1820

18

2

7

16

21

18

9

1

257A

19

116

17

83

4042

4244

4650

4856 54

52

7577

7371

69

77B

50 48

52

RD

ESTHER

ESTHE

O'NEIL

HUNTER

ESTHER LN

PARK L

LN

RYA

NAV

E

PDE

SUPERBA

ST

SUPE

RBA

ARBUTUS

NDOLONG

LITT

LE

LN

LN

MANDOLONG

LN

ST

BALMORAL AVE

RED

ANMU

STON

RED

AN

RD

ALMO

RA

H


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new dwelling house, driveway, swimming pool and associated landscape works. The proposal does not comply with the site area, FSR, wall height, building height and number of storey requirements of the LEP. SEPP 1 objections have been received in relation to FSR, wall height and number of storeys which are not supported. Ryan Avenue has two distinct residential characters comprising more traditional 2 storey residences immediately surrounding the subject site and larger contemporary 3 to 4 storey residences located within the cul-de-sac bulb of Ryan Avenue. The proposal is more compatible with the bulk and scale of residences within the cul-de-sac bulb of Ryan Avenue than those in its immediate vicinity. The proposed new residence is an interesting architectural design. However, the proposal seeks to significantly exceed the FSR requirement of the LEP which may set a precedent for the development of other such dwellings in the street. The main issue with the application is the non-compliance with the FSR control and the significant excavation proposed to accommodate this additional gross floor area. The proposed ground level of the new residence is located largely below existing ground level. The revised plans considered in this report improve the amenity of the ground floor habitable rooms but do not significantly decrease gross floor area or reduce the extent of excavation proposed. A total of 2 submissions were received during the initial exhibition period. A further two submissions were received in response to the exhibition of the amended application. The proposal is recommended for refusal on the basis that the proposal does not comply with the FSR and number of storeys requirements of MLEP 1998.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the western side of Ryan Avenue. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 16.955m to Ryan Avenue. The site falls approximately 9.66m from the rear to the front boundary. The site presently contains a two storey dwelling house. Surrounding development consists predominantly of detached two storey dwelling houses. 2.0 BACKGROUND Following preliminary assessment of the application, a letter was sent to the applicant on 11 December 2006 identifying concerns and requesting additional information. Amended plans and documentation were received by Council on 16 January 2007. The matters outlined in Council’s letter and the applicant’s response is summarised as follows: 1. The applicant was requested to address the comments provided by Council’s

Landscape Officer and to demonstrate compliance with the landscaped area requirement of the LEP either through the deletion of some hardstand areas such as the BBQ terrace and part of the driveway and/or through a reduction in the gross floor area of the dwelling.


Applicant’s response: The amended plans did not provide any additional landscaped area. Council’s new Landscape Officer supported the proposed landscaping at the front of the site.

2. On the basis of the significant amount of excavation proposed, the slope of the site and the proximity to adjoining dwellings, it is considered that the development should comply with the minimum 2m side setback requirement at garage level to the southern boundary. Applicant’s response: The amended plans complied with the minimum 2m setback requirement for excavation.

3. The proposed swimming pool should be set back a minimum distance of 2m from the site’s southern boundary in accordance with the requirements of MRDCP. Applicant’s response: The amended plans complied with the minimum 2m setback to the swimming pool.

4. Concern has been raised by an adjoining property owner in relation to the proposed location of the air conditioning units. As a guide, Council’s Exempt and Complying Development DCP considers air conditioners that are set back 3m from the boundary to be acceptable. Furthermore this DCP permits only one unit per dwelling. It is recommended that the air conditioning units be relocated to comply with the complying development requirements for such units including the specified noise emission controls. Applicant’s response: The amended plans showed the air conditioning units relocated to the driveway area and at least 3m from the boundary.

5. The height and extent of rear garden walls is excessive and should be deleted from the plans. Minor retaining walls, and/or side boundary fences with a maximum height of 1.8m would be considered acceptable design solutions. Applicant’s response: The rear garden wall had been deleted from the plans.

6. To minimise the bulk and scale of the development, it was recommended that the

proposed roof over the rear terrace and pool be deleted from the plans. Sun protection to the living rooms of the dwelling could be provided through blinds or screens on the western façade of the dwelling or through a retractable awning over the terrace rather than a permanent roof structure. Applicant’s response: The amended plans show a retractable roller blind over the terrace.

7. Concern was raised in relation to the amenity of the proposed habitable rooms on the ground floor plan as these rooms are located at or below existing ground level. Additional information was required to determine whether the proposed wall is needed as a retaining wall and whether the height of this wall could be reduced. If the wall is not required to retain a higher natural ground level within the side setback area, it would be recommended that the wall be deleted from the plans and that light be provided to the proposed habitable rooms through a larger and more open landscaped area within the northern side setback. Applicant’s response: The retaining wall was lowered slightly and the depth of the light court was widened by 25mm. The applicant would welcome a further widening of the light court if Council was willing to relax the setback requirement for excavation.


The applicant also submitted a photograph of a similar light courtyard adjoining a bedroom which did not satisfy my concerns regarding acceptable residential amenity.

A letter was sent to the applicant on 31 January 2007 indicating that the application could not be supported. The applicant was advised that the principal concerns with the application included the extent of excavation proposed, the number of storeys, non-compliance with FSR requirement and amenity of habitable rooms. The letter advised that Council may support an amended scheme that includes deletion of the lower ground floor level and replacement of the proposed habitable ground level with non-habitable space including garaging. At the applicant’s request a meeting was held with consultant planner Mr Stuart Harding to discuss the concerns with the application. Following this meeting the applicant requested additional time to prepare amended plans. These plans were received by Council on 1 May 2007. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Demolition of the existing dwelling; • Construction of new 2 to 3 storey dwelling including double garage; • New driveway and vehicular crossing; • New swimming pool, terrace and BBQ area at the rear of the site; and • Landscape works. A level by level description is provided below as described in the Statement of Environmental Effects: Garage Level • Double garage; • Lift; and • Hallway. Ground Level • Cinema room; • Bedrooms 3 & 4; • Bathroom; • Main entry; and • Store. First Floor Level • Bedroom 1 and ensuite; • Bedroom 2 and ensuite; • Study; • Balcony; and • Laundry.


Second Floor Level • Tiled front terrace; • Dining room; • Living room; • Kitchen; • Pool terrace and BBQ area; and • Swimming pool. The proposal also includes excavation, stormwater drainage works and landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1 and 10b. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m2 543.4m2 No (No SEPP 1 objection submitted)

Building Height 8.5m 8.6m No (No SEPP 1 objection submitted)

Wall Height 7.2m 7.95m No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2-4 storeys No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Gross Floor Area 271.7m2 380 m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5: 1 0.7: 1 No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Landscaped Area 258m2 264m2 Yes


DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Basement – north

Basement - south

Ground floor - north

Ground floor - south

First floor – north

First floor – south

Second floor - north

Second floor - south

Swimming Pool

2m

2m

0.9m - 2m

0.9m - 2m

0.9m - 1.5m

0.9m - 1.5m

0.9m - 3m

0.9m-3m

2m

3.1m

2m

3m to dwelling

2m

3m to dwelling

2m

2.4m - 3m

2m-3.2m

1.7m (to roof over pool)

2m (to pool coping)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Height Plane 45o from ground level along southern boundary

>450 No

Parking

Garage / Carport Width

On merit

5.5 x 5.6m

2 spaces

5.6 x 6.0m

Yes

Yes

Front Fence Height 1.2m 1.5m No

Solar access to living and main private open space areas

2 hours between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm

> 2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 25%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 25%

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards The applicant has lodged an objection under the provisions of SEPP 1 relating to wall height and number of storeys. A further SEPP 1 objection was lodged with regard to the floor space ratio. SEPP 1 Objections have not been received in relation to maximum building height and minimum site area. The SEPP 1 objections received are addressed as follows: 1. Height The objectives of the applicable height limits specified in Clause 13(3) are: (a) to protect public and private views, and (b) to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and surrounding

foreshores, and (c) to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing

buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form, and (d) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in

existing residential areas.


The non-complying elements include: • Building Height – 8.6m • Wall height – 7.95m • Storeys – part 3 and 4 storey A summary of the justification provided in the SEPP 1 objection is outlined below: • The non-compliance extends for a length of 3m along the southern elevation of the

dwelling; • The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon views; • The proposal generally maintains the same envelope as the existing dwelling; • The maximum height of the proposal is slightly lower than the maximum height of the

existing dwelling; • Side setbacks will be increased; • The variations to height are located at the front of the site; • The bulk, scale and character of the development is appropriate to its context; • The stepping of built form will reinforce the sloping topography; and • The proposal does not result in any undue overshadowing or loss of visual privacy. It should be noted that the applicant has not submitted a SEPP 1 Objection for building height as the SEE specifies a proposed maximum height of 8.5m. The maximum height of the building shown on the architectural plans is measured at 8.6m at the eastern end of the upper floor pergola roof. The extent of the non-compliance is minimal and could be satisfactorily addressed by reducing the extent of the pergola roof through a condition of consent. Planning Comment: Number of storeys: The proposal is three and four storeys in part, which does not comply with the LEP requirement. The additional storeys proposed are located largely below natural ground level. The dwelling generally complies with the maximum 8.5m building height requirement, with the exception of part of the pergola roof which extends to 8.6m. The garage, lobby and lift on the basement level are located predominantly below natural ground level and are included as a storey as per the definition in MLEP 1998. Furthermore, a significant part of the proposed ground floor level is also located below natural ground level. Concern is raised over the extent of excavation required to facilitate the proposed dwelling. The site falls around 9m from rear to front and therefore a stepped design is encouraged and supported to minimise cut and fill and reduce the bulk and scale of the dwelling. It is acknowledged that the topography of the subject site presents inherent difficulties in accommodating a dwelling that can step from garage level at the front of the site to a usable open space area at the rear of the site. In principle the proposal achieves this however it also includes additional excavation to accommodate more floor space than permitted under the LEP. The proposed ground floor level of the residence is located at or near the existing natural ground level at the front of the existing dwelling. The proposal includes an additional basement level below this to accommodate a double garage, lobby and lift. As the proposed garage level is located below existing ground level, part of the front yard would also need to be excavated to accommodate a driveway with a lower gradient. From the street the


proposed residence would read as a three storey dwelling above basement garage. The proposed floor level of the garage is compatible with the existing road level. The plans include fencing and a sliding gate across the front of the site which would assist in screening the basement storey from the street. These features are however not supported as such features are uncharacteristic in Ryan Avenue. This matter is discussed in more detail later in this report. Concern was raised with the applicant over the extent of excavation proposed in relation to the number of storeys and amenity of habitable rooms with limited access to natural light. These matters were discussed in a meeting with the applicant’s planner. It was suggested that a more appropriate design outcome for the site would be a scheme which raised the garage level to the proposed first floor level and the deletion of habitable rooms with limited access to natural light. We were advised that the owners did not wish to pursue such a proposal and the applicant suggested an alternative floor plan for the ground floor which would improve access to light to bedrooms on ground level. Positive initial feedback was provided to the applicant that the revised ground floor plan would improve some of the amenity concerns associated with the proposal. While the amenity of this level has been improved, the proposal still includes substantial excavation and reliance on an excavated garden level to provide reasonable access to natural light to a bedroom on this level. The proposal meets objectives (a) and (b) of the LEP height controls but fails to meet objectives (c) and (d). In relation to objective (a), the proposed number of storeys does not impact on views from surrounding residences as the proposal generally complies with the maximum building height requirement and the additional storeys are located largely below natural ground level. In relation to objective (b), the dwelling would not be visible from the harbour or surrounding foreshores and is therefore satisfactory in this regard. In relation to objective (c), the proposal is incompatible with the number of storeys of adjoining residential dwellings. It is however compatible with the height of larger dwellings located at the end of Ryan Avenue and the residential flat building located above the site. The character of Ryan Avenue immediately surrounding the subject site is different from the character at the end of Ryan Avenue. A two storey height requirement currently applies to all sites within the street. To support a part three and four storey building on the subject site may create a precedent for all dwellings in Ryan Avenue to be redeveloped to a height above the number of storey requirement. Likewise, in relation to objective (d), the proposed number of storeys does not minimise the effects of bulk and scale when assessed with regard to dwellings that immediately adjoin the site. In considering a variation under SEPP 1, compliance with the control must be assessed as unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Despite the proposed dwelling stepping with the topography of the land, the proposal seeks to vary the control to accommodate a garage, lift and lobby below natural ground level which could reasonably be accommodated at or near the existing ground level without the need for additional excavation. Locating the garage level at existing ground level would however reduce the living space proposed on the ground floor level of the residence. The proposal exceeds the FSR control by 0.2:1 or 109m2, which is roughly the size of the proposed ground floor level. The size of rooms in the proposed new dwelling is well proportioned and could be reduced to accommodate more rooms within a complying scheme. In summary, compliance with the number of storeys control is considered reasonable to accommodate a dwelling with a gross floor area that would meet the density requirements of the LEP.


For these reasons, the SEPP 1 Objection in relation to number of storeys is not well founded and not supported. Wall height: The proposal also does not meet the wall height requirements of the LEP. The proposed non-compliance with the 7.2m wall height control occurs over a 3.2m length on the southern side of the dwelling. The extent of the non-compliance ranges from nil to 0.75m and does not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property. Due to the sloping nature of the site and minimal impacts, compliance with the control in the circumstances of this case would be considered unreasonable and unnecessary. The proposed wall height of the dwelling is consistent with the height objectives of the LEP and the SEPP 1 Objection in relation to wall height is well founded and therefore supported. 2. Floor space ratio The objectives of the applicable height limits specified in Clause 14(2) are: (a) To control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics

of the locality, and (b) To limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of

landscaping and containing urban run-off, (c) To minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development. The non-complying elements include: • FSR – 0.7:1 A summary of the justification provided in the SEPP 1 objection is outlined below: • The dwelling maintains generally a similar envelope to the existing dwelling; • The dwelling maintains a similar visual interrelationship with buildings on surrounding

properties; • The tiered building design is characteristic of more recently completed dwellings in the

streetscape; • The additional GFA does not contribute to the visual scale of the building to the public

domain; • The proposal complies with the landscaped area requirements of MLEP; • The amount of excavation will not limit the scope of on-site landscaping and provision of

appropriate measures to control runoff • The building will present a well designed contemporary design in a landscaped setting. Planning Comment: Ryan Avenue is characterised by a mix of dwelling sizes, styles and lot sizes. The character of Ryan Avenue appears to be undergoing some transition with older dwellings being replaced by larger contemporary dwellings. Most recently a dwelling was approved by the Land and Environment Court at 9A Ryan Avenue with a gross floor area of 339.5m2. It is understood that the site area of this residence is 633m2, which constitutes a FSR of 0.5:1. The subject site at 8 Ryan Avenue has a smaller site area of 543.4m2 and is possibly a more difficult site to develop due to the slope of the land. The landscaped area of the existing site is in poor condition and no usable private open space is provided.


The proposal includes 380m2 gross floor area which significantly exceeds the maximum permitted on this site under the LEP. The size of the proposed residence is larger than adjoining dwellings and the recent approval at 9A Ryan Avenue. In this respect it fails to meet objective (a) of the FSR provisions of the LEP. As previously mentioned in this report, there are however a number of larger residences at the end of Ryan Avenue. The specific site area, gross floor area and FSR of these residences is unknown, however the proposed size of the dwelling at 8 Ryan Avenue would appear to be consistent with the size of the dwellings located at the end of Ryan Avenue. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be considerably smaller than the residential building located behind the site (shown at the top of the following photograph). Please note that the existing dwelling at No.8 Ryan Avenue is the white dwelling in the foreground.

However, notwithstanding the compatibility of the size of the residence with other residences in the locality, Council’s floor space ratio control is expressed in terms of the ratio of gross floor area to site area. If Council consistently applies the FSR control of the LEP to new dwellings in the Mosman local government area, compliance with the control would not be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this case as a reasonable sized dwelling could be accommodated on the site without the need for substantial excavation. The application has been assessed on this basis and for this reason the SEPP 1 Objection cannot be supported. In relation to objective (b), the proposal includes substantial excavation to accommodate the additional gross floor area. The proposal complies with the landscaped area requirement of the LEP and the excavation does not effect landscaping as per the FSR objective. The proposal has a gross floor area that is109m2 above the maximum permitted gross floor area for this site. The proposed ground floor level of the residence which is predominantly below natural ground level has a gross floor area of 107m2. As previously discussed, concerns in relation to the amenity of habitable rooms located principally below ground level were raised with the applicant. The initial scheme included a light courtyard along the northern side of the dwelling. The applicant submitted additional


information to support the proposed light courtyard however this was assessed as an unsuitable means of providing satisfactory amenity to the proposed rooms. Earlier this year, Council planners also raised concern in relation to the proposal. The applicant was advised that the proposed ground floor level could not be supported. The applicant requested a meeting to discuss the concerns further. The applicant’s representatives advised that it was unlikely that the owners would support the deletion of one level of the residence and raising the garage level to the level of the proposed ground floor or relocation of the garage to the front of the site. On 2 March 2007, the applicant’s Consultant Planner emailed some sketches outlining an amended scheme. While these sketches did not delete the ground floor level or relocate the garage level they did address concerns in relation to the size of the driveway and improve the amenity of the proposed bedrooms on the ground level of the residence. The sketches were not drawn to scale and did not include gross floor area information at that stage. Positive feedback was given to the applicant on the improvements made to the plans and on this basis the applicant prepared amended plans. Notwithstanding this, concerns are still raised in relation to the extent of excavation proposed to accommodate gross floor area in excess of the LEP requirements. The proposed garage level will be visible from the street and will add to the bulk and scale of the residence. Improvements could be made to the design to reduce bulk and scale further such as increasing the setback of the uppermost floor to provide greater modulation however the dwelling would still be read as a three to four storey residence from the street. The proposed FSR exceeds the density envisaged by the LEP and results in a building volume greater than that intended for the area in accordance with the current planning controls. In considering a variation under SEPP 1, compliance with the control must be assessed in terms of whether it is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As previously stated, the proposal seeks approval for significant excavation to accommodate a garage level and secondary bedroom level. The proposal exceeds the FSR control by 0.2:1 or 109m2, which is roughly the size of the proposed ground floor level. Compliance with the FSR requirement is considered reasonable to accommodate a dwelling with a gross floor area that would meet the density requirements of the LEP. The owners require a larger dwelling size than is permitted under the LEP which is not a valid reason for non-compliance with the Council control. The SEPP 1 Objection for FSR is therefore not supported. 5.2.2 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 The proposal is generally consistent with the provisions of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(a1) under Mosman LEP 1998.


The works are defined as dwelling and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11 for Residential zones. The development satisfies the zone objectives. Subdivision The existing allotment has an area of 543.4m2. This is less than the 700m2 lot size prescribed in Clause 12 of MLEP 1998. Variation from the lot size standard requires the submission of a SEPP 1 objection. No SEPP 1 objection has been submitted. Height As previously discussed in Section 5.2.1 of this report the non-compliances with maximum building height and wall height are acceptable however the non-compliance with the number of storeys is not supported. It should be noted that if Council wishes to approve this application either a SEPP 1 Objection would need to be lodged in relation to building height or a condition imposed to require the front pergola roof to be amended to comply with the 8.5m maximum height. Floor Space Ratio The proposal has a FSR of 0.7:1 which does not meet the maximum FSR requirement of 0.5:1 for this site. The non-compliance with the FSR requirement has previously been addressed in Section 5.2.1 of this report. The SEPP 1 Objection is not supported. Landscaped Area The amended proposal has a landscaped area of 264m2, which complies with the 258m2 landscaped area requirement for the site calculated in accordance with the provisions of Clause 15 of the MLEP. The proposal seeks to reduce the landscaped area at the front of the site by constructing a large driveway to access the double garage. The applicant was requested to address whether landscaping in the front setback area could be improved and whether the extent of the driveway could be reduced. The revised plans show a minor reduction in the size of the driveway. The application is accompanied by a detailed landscape plan prepared by Trish Dobson Landscape Architect. It is noted that the revised plan is not drawn to the correct scale. A revised landscape plan has not been submitted however Council’s Landscape Officer met with the applicant’s Landscape Designer on site in December to discuss the proposal. Council’s Landscape Designer did not raise any objection to the proposal but suggested more planting to increase landscape dominance over the built form. Should Council be of a view to approve this application, this matter could be dealt with by imposing appropriate conditions of consent. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural and visual environment and is satisfactory in this regard.


Excavation The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Clause 31 of MLEP. The objective of this clause is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with landform modification. The proposal includes substantial excavation. A Geotechnical Report prepared by Jeffery and Katauskas accompanies the application. All work would need to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations made in this report including the requirements for further geotechnical work. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale As previously mentioned, the proposed building and wall height are considered acceptable however the proposed number of storeys and FSR are excessive with regard to the desired character and density reflected by the LEP controls. The proposal complies with the setback provisions of the DCP and is well modulated and articulated. The development is stepped back at the upper levels as per the DCP provision for sites adjoining single dwelling houses and does not result in any material privacy or overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties. Bulk and scale could however be improved by the reconfiguration or deletion of the garage and ground floor levels to retain and design from the existing ground levels. The siting, form, bulk and scale of the proposal is inconsistent with adjoining residences. It is more compatible with some of the larger residences located at the end of Ryan Avenue. Views The proposal will not result in any material loss of views from surrounding residences. The dwellings to the rear of the property are well elevated above the subject site. Furthermore, the proposal largely complies with the maximum permitted building height of 8.5m, with the exception of the pergola roof at the front of the residence which extends to 8.6m. Landscaping This matter has previously been addressed in the LEP section of this report. Streetscape and Building Design There appear to be two distant characters present in Ryan Avenue. The one immediately surrounding the subject site is characterised by older dwellings that are generally 2 storeys in height. A number of sites within the cul-de-sac bulb of Ryan Avenue have been redeveloped and include contemporary 3 to 4 storey residences mixed with more traditional dwellings. The proposed dwelling is a contemporary style residence that is more consistent with the bulk and scale of the dwellings located at the end of Ryan Avenue, where the land is steeper.


The dwelling is well modulated and articulated. The proposed use of a range of colours and finishes would assist in reducing the bulk and scale of the dwelling, however further improvements could be made with regard to front setbacks. The proposed front fence has a height of 1.5m which exceeds the DCP requirement of 1.2m. As Ryan Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the site is characterised by open front yards it would be appropriate to limit the height of the fence to 1.2m. The proposed gate across the driveway is also not supported as it would introduce an uncharacteristic element into the streetscape. As noted above, the section of Ryan Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the site is largely characterised by open street frontages. One property at the end of Ryan Avenue is gated and is incompatible with the character of the street and surrounding residences. The proposal comprises significant excavation and has not been designed from the ground up with ground floors located at or near natural ground level as required by the DCP. While the applicant has improved the amenity of the ground floor habitable rooms ideally all such rooms should be located above natural ground level where possible. All proposed rooms in the dwelling are large and could potentially be reduced to accommodate the two additional bedrooms located on the proposed ground level without the need to place them below ground level. Privacy The proposal will not result in any unacceptable privacy impacts on neighbouring properties. No windows are proposed on the southern facade of the dwelling with the exception of the glazed wall adjoining the living room on the second floor. While the extent of glazing in this room is significant, a permanent sun and privacy vertical aluminium blade screen across the living room windows would ensure a satisfactory level of privacy could be maintained to the neighbouring property to the south. Similar treatment is proposed to the living room windows on the northern facade of the dwelling. Windows are also proposed on the northern façade of the dwelling on ground and first floor. The proposed windows on the first floor level service a bedroom, two ensuites and a study. Reasonable privacy could be provided to future residents of the development if obscured glazing was provided to the two ensuites on the first floor level. The proposed windows on the ground floor would result in no privacy impacts as they are located below the ground level of the adjoining residence to the north. The proposed terrace at the front of the dwelling on the second floor is situated forward of the neighbouring dwelling to the south and considerably higher than the adjoining dwelling to the north and would therefore not result in any material privacy impacts. Overshadowing The shadow diagrams indicate that the proposal would result in an increased amount of overshadowing on the adjoining property to the south at 9am and noon mid winter. At 9am the additional overshadowing falls over a small section of the rear yard of No.6 Ryan Avenue, a section of the northern facade of the dwelling and an increase of approximately 200mm to the height of the shadows on two windows on the northern facade. By noon, the proposal would result in additional shadowing of the northern facade of the dwelling however no windows would be overshadowed at this time. The additional overshadowing of parts of the rear yard, side setback and front yard is minimal and considered acceptable.


The applicant’s shadow diagram for 3pm does not clearly show the additional overshadowing on No.6 Ryan Avenue on the basis that there would be no additional shadow cast due to the presence of trees and hill to the north-west and west. In the absence of the hills and trees, additional overshadowing would most likely occur on the western most window on the northern façade of the dwelling and across the front yard. The amount of additional overshadowing resulting from the proposed development is minimal and will not result in any significant impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property to the south. Furthermore, No.6 Ryan Avenue enjoys good access to sunlight at the equinoxes and mid summer. Swimming Pool The proposed pool is set back a minimum distance of 2m from the site boundaries. Pool plant is located below the adjoining pool terrace which will minimise disturbance to adjoining properties. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the existing and desired future character objectives for this townscape. The future character objectives include maintenance of the architectural diversity of the area and limiting bulky mega houses. The proposal has a considerable and undesirable vertical emphasis and will be perceived as a four storey dwelling when viewed from the street. Its appearance from the street and the gross floor area exceedence results in a more substantial dwelling on the site than would be the case were compliance with the number of storeys and FSR controls achieved. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal provides two car parking spaces on site which is consistent with the car parking requirements of Mosman Transport DCP. The proposal includes the removal of the existing driveway and crossover and construction of a new driveway and crossover slightly south of the existing. The proposed crossover and lower portion of driveway have a width of 3m which complies with the DCP requirements. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 As the application is recommended for refusal a Section 94A contribution has not been levied. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Architect made the following comments regarding the original proposal: “In its present format I cannot support this proposal for the following reasons:


• The privacy walls to the driveway and on the south side of the pool are excessive. They divide the space of the front garden and diminish the landscaping. They should be reduced in scale to act as retaining walls only and not as privacy screens.

• The excavation of the front yard to level, the decreased setback and the broader driveway gives the dwelling a more bulky appearance and presents as a dominance of built over natural environment. The specified landscaping is insufficient and requires either a re-design of the landscape or reduction in the size of the dwelling.”

The revised application was subsequently reviewed by Council’s Landscape Architect who made the following comments: “Site Visit with Trish Dobson, Architect and Owners 28.12.06 to discuss landscape comments. The wall in question has already been reduced in size, so suggested some more planting to increase landscape dominance over built form. The amended Landscape Plan shows the reduction in the size of the wall plus 2 additional indigenous trees. Conditions: All proposed trees shall be planted at a minimum of 45L.” Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was originally notified between 5 July and 20 July 2006. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 36 Almora Street; and • 6 Ryan Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Destabilization of major retaining wall along western boundary; Comment: The Geotechnical Report indicates that the existing rear retaining wall is in good condition. All works would be undertaken in accordance with the details and recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report.

Subterranean water flow; Comment: The Geotechnical Report recommends further investigations be carried out in relation to drainage. As noted above, the application will be conditioned to comply with the recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report.

Proposal does not blend with surrounding homes; Comment: While the proposed dwelling style is larger and different from the homes immediately adjoining it, the proposed style is compatible with the style of other newer residences in the area. The proposed building is well articulated and modulated and is compatible with the Balmoral future character objective in that the architectural diversity of the area would be maintained.


Reflectivity and glare; Comment: This matter can be satisfactorily addressed through an appropriate condition of consent requiring all glazing to have a reflectivity index of less than 20% and for the roof sheeting to be non-reflective.

Noise from air conditioning and pool; Comment: The air conditioning units have been relocated to the front of the site adjoining the driveway where they are unlikely to cause any adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. The pool equipment is to be located under the pool terrace and will therefore also not cause any significant noise impacts.

Noise, dust and construction hours; Comment: These matters can be addressed by standard conditions of consent.

Proximity of services; Comment: The adjoining owner to the south has raised concern in relation to the bulk, scale and proximity of the services block along the southern side of the proposed building. A lift servicing a single residential dwelling is unlikely to create any significant noise impacts and will need to be designed to comply with acceptable noise standards.

Overshadowing; Comment: The adjoining owner to the south has raised concern over the loss of sunlight to 2 bedrooms on the northern side of their residence. This matter has been addressed in the DCP section of this report.

Inadequate side setbacks particularly for excavation; Comment: The amended proposal complies with the setback requirements of the DCP.

Height and bulk of proposed rear wall; Comment: The proposed wall on the southern side of the rear yard has been deleted from the plans. Following receipt of amended plans on 1 May 2007, the application was renotified between 8 May and 23 May 2007. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 13 Balmoral Avenue; and • 6 Ryan Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Shadow diagrams and 45 degree rule; Comment: The owner of 6 Ryan Avenue has raised concern over the accuracy of shadow information. It should be noted that amended shadow diagrams were not lodged with the latest plans as no changes were made to the height or setbacks of the dwelling.


The proposal does not comply with the 45 degree height plane specified in the DCP however it meets and in some cases exceeds the setback requirements of the DCP and will not result any significant overshadowing impacts. On this basis, the non-compliance with the building height plane is assessed as acceptable.

Concern over excavation; Comment: A geotechnical report was submitted with the application. Should Council approve the application appropriate conditions of consent would need to be imposed requiring all works to be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. Furthermore, conditions would be imposed requiring dilapidation surveys to be carried out on neighbouring properties and a construction management plan submitted prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Noise from lift; Comment: As previously mentioned in this report, use of a lift for a single dwelling house would not result in any unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining property and would be subject to standard conditions of consent in relation to noise levels.

Colours; Comment: The proposed colours and materials have been assessed and are considered acceptable.

FSR definition; Comment: The FSR in the amended scheme has been reduced due a slight decrease in gross floor area. Lifts are excluded from the calculation of gross floor area as per the definition in MLEP. The gross floor area specified on the amended plans has been checked and has been correctly calculated.

Excess GFA; Comment: This matter has been addressed in detail throughout this report. Refusal of the application is recommended on the basis of non-compliance with the FSR requirements of the LEP.

Roof treatment; Comment: The owner of 13 Balmoral Avenue has objected to the proposed flat colourbond roof and suggested that the colourbond roof be replaced with a concrete roof covered with non-reflective pebble ballast. The proposed roof is characteristic of many new roofs in the Mosman area and provided a condition was imposed limiting the reflectivity of the roof it would not cause any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties. It is understood that the owner of 13 Balmoral Avenue has had approved a concrete roof with pebble ballast on another property he owns. No objection would be raised to such a proposal if the applicant for 8 Ryan Avenue wished to provide a similar roof however the proposed colourbond roof is also considered acceptable.

Landscaping Comment: The owner of 13 Balmoral Avenue has requested that the mature heights of trees on the southern boundary of the site be limited to the same level as the proposed roof height. An amended landscape plan has not been submitted with the application and would be required by a condition of consent should Council decide to approve this application. 13


Balmoral Avenue is elevated above the subject site and is unlikely to be affected by any view loss from landscaping along the southern side of the subject site. A limitation on tree height in the terms sought would require tree planting of lesser height (by 2m) than the existing rear boundary wall and this is unreasonable. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new dwelling, swimming pool, driveway and associated landscape works are generally consistent with the objectives and provisions of MLEP and MDCP, with the exception of FSR and number of storeys. The proposal also does not comply with the building height requirements in relation to wall height and building height however these non-compliances are minor and could be supported. The main issue of concern with the application relates to the extent of excavation proposed to accommodate a garage level and ground level. The amount of gross floor area contained in the ground level is roughly equivalent to the additional gross floor area sought above the LEP requirement. The most recent application approved in Ryan Avenue (by the Land and Environment Court) relates to a new dwelling across the road from the subject site at 9A Ryan Avenue. The dwelling approved on this site complied with the FSR and height requirements of the LEP. Despite the proposal being of interesting architectural design, it is recommended for refusal on the basis that it exceeds the FSR and number of storeys requirements of the LEP and is therefore inconsistent with the desired character as prescribed through the planning controls applicable to the site. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Rosevear Architects. The owners are David and Amanda Ferrall. The estimated value of works is $2,318,700. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 2006.204.1 be refused on the following grounds: 1. The proposal does not comply with Clause 12 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan

1998 in relation to minimum lot size. A SEPP No. 1 Objection has not been submitted in relation to this non-compliance.

2. The proposal does not comply with Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan

1998 in relation to building height. A SEPP 1 Objection has not been submitted in relation to this non-compliance.


1998 in relation to the maximum number of storeys. The SEPP 1 is not well founded and strict compliance with the standard is neither unreasonable nor unnecessary.


1998 in relation to the maximum floor space ratio, and is inconsistent with the objectives of the standard. The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and strict compliance with the standard is neither unreasonable nor unnecessary.


5. The proposal does not protect, conserve nor enhance the landform on the site pursuant to Clause 2(l) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans


EP/141 6 Calliope Street DA NUMBER: 8.2006.281.1 PROPOSAL: Section 82A Review of Determination - Demolition of

existing garage, erection of a new single garage to the rear and a new single carport to the front of the site and minor works to the existing dwelling

REPORTING OFFICER: Bertha Gunawan, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 9 May 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Confirm determination to retain condition No 2 of the

consent - requiring the deletion of the carport to the front of the site.

Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

2

B2

31

12

DP

6667

10

DP

9405

92

32

2423

SP 1

1421

SP 1

9686

DP 2509C

DP

9130

12

DP 9

SP 15

DP 10701

55

SP 36859

1

51

17

A35

BA

33

SP 13729

43

5

D P439082

D P440016

D P584039

DP

2638

D

21

DP 309718

DP 2638C

A 1

12

6

DP

1768

09

DP 303084

34

1 2 21 22

DP

6331

67

DP

9342

13

DP

1005

01

523

10

2

D

P 10

4016

5

D

P

6083

08

C

DP 2509

2DP 723521

1 2

1

1 4 3B 2A

D

P

1054

28

DP 948064

21

6

1

DP 410382

DP

4212

19

DP

1312D

P

5116

41

SP 15699

SP 30507

DP 2509

21

DP 2509C

DP 937493

23

1D

P 23

65

DP

2365

B11

DP

8467

88

SP 6

6442

AB

DF

8C

EG

D

27

65

SP 13022

A

SP 110912

DP

4092

87

22E

1D

DP 311723

DP 399993

DP 900060

DP 2365

SP 55702

SP 11907

A1

1516

20

14

1936

5

A

3

35

33

9

48

75

3034

3630

38

2325

2729

30

46

3234

3638

4042

44

20 22 31

197

21

35

2628

49B

47A

49C

49B

49

6

4A

37A

39

45A

4141

B41

C43

A

45

47

2123

2525

A

2723

2931

33

2931

3335

37

27

2

33

4

31

6

29

27

1925 23

4

21 17

4

18

2

15

12

13

14 16

11

16

2ST

RD

AVEST

REGINALD

SPO

FFO

RT

CALLIOPEST

CAL

LIO

PE

LN


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development Application 8.2006.281.1 for demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a new single garage fronting Reginald Street, a new carport fronting Calliope Street and minor works to the existing dwelling was approved on 15 February 2007. The approval included a condition requiring the deletion of the carport forward of the building line to Calliope Street. The Section 82A Review application seeks reinstatement of the carport on the street front. The proposed carport does not comply with the guidelines of Mosman Residential DCP, particularly Sections 5.1, 5.2 and Mosman Transport Development Control Plan. It is recommended that Council confirm the retention of condition No 2 requiring that the carport be deleted.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the northern side of Calliope Street, between Spofforth Street and Reginald Street. The site is trapezoidal in shape with a frontage of 12.23m to Calliope Street and a secondary frontage of 11.09m to Reginald Street. The site falls 3.43m to the rear (Reginald Street) at an average gradient of 7.5%. The site presently contains a part two storey brick dwelling house with tiled roof, swimming pool and single garage fronting Reginald Street. The house entrance is on the eastern side of the dwelling from Calliope Street. Surrounding development consists of part two storey dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND On 15 February 2007, Development Application 8.2006.281.1 for demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a new single garage fronting Reginald Street, a new carport fronting Calliope Street and minor works to the existing dwelling was approved under delegated authority, subject to the deletion of the proposed carport fronting Calliope Street via Condition 2 of the consent which reads as follows: “2. The driveway and carport fronting Calliope Street does not form part of this approval

and shall be deleted from the plans submitted for the Construction Certificate. Such amended plans are to provide landscaping in place of the carport or alternatively shall retain the area as existing.”


On 28 February 2007, a discussion was held between the Council officers, the applicant and the owner of the property in relation to the required deletion of the carport. Reasons for its deletion were discussed, particularly siting, streetscape appearance, inadequate soft landscaping provision and non-compliances with Section 5.2 - Car Parking and Access under Mosman Residential Development Control Plan. A few options to provide additional car parking within the site were also explored during the meeting. On 9 May 2007, a request for review of the determination was lodged under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 3 letters of support in relation to the proposed carport accompanied the request for review. No changes have been made to the application.. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Review specifically seeks to delete condition 2 of the consent. The earlier assessment report is attached as an annexure to this report. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 82A and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area N/A 566.1m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.6 : 1 0.595 : 1 (existing) Yes

Landscaped Area

Existing 238.5m2 85.4m2 N/A

Proposed 238.5m2 137m2 No



Setbacks

Carport – west

nil

1.1m

Yes

Parking

Carport Width

On merit

3m

2 spaces

4.5m

Yes

No

Fencing Height - carport 1.2m 1.2m Yes



>2 hours Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(c) The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development has not fully satisfied zone objective 7 in that the proposed carport has not had adequate regard to local amenity and diminishes the streetscape appearance. Section 82A of the Act enables Council to change or confirm its earlier determination. The proposal as lodged is permissible pursuant to section 82A requirements, it being noted that: (a) the earlier determination was not for an application relating to Crown development,

designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate;

(b) the application was lodged within 12 months of the earlier determination; (c) there were no amendments to the proposal; (d) the application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification DCP; (e) no submissions were received; and (f) there has not been a previous section 82A review request for the application. Landscaped Area The existing development on the subject site does not comply with the numerical provision as stated in Clause 15 of Mosman LEP 1998. The original report indicated a decrease in the landscaping provision, which is incorrect. A revised calculation as indicated in the numerical table shows an improvement in the landscaped area provision, notwithstanding that it remains deficient. The marginal improvement in landscaped area, however, does not warrant support for the proposed carport in that: a. in order to allow a carport, a new driveway on Calliope Street has to be constructed

which will require the removal of a street tree, and b. the provision of a car space at the rear, which in the case of the subject property is

through Reginald Street, does not necessitate further loss of landscaping to the front yard.


c. The carport is substantially wider across the street frontage than is required for a single carport (4.5m compared with 3m)

For these reasons, the proposed carport cannot be supported. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposed carport on Calliope Street forward of the building line is inappropriate. Please refer to Car Parking and Access. Landscaping The proposed driveway to the carport on Calliope Street will result in the need to remove an existing street tree on the south-western side to the property. The proposal was referred to Council’s Landscape Architect who commented as follows: “Permission for removal of the tree is not given. There is no health or safety reason to remove this street tree. If the applicant is able to accommodate a driveway and carport to the Reginald Street frontage that should be considered sufficient. I can think of no explanation as to why a single dwelling would require a carport at either end of the property.” The removal of the street tree was originally assessed as inappropriate in the context of existing rear access to the site and this is unchanged. Streetscape and Building Design It is clear that Reginald Street is the secondary frontage and Calliope Street is the primary street frontage for the subject site. This is evidenced by the low timber picket fence on Calliope Street and the 1.8m high wall fronting Reginald Street. Furthermore, properties adjoining the subject site, which also have a secondary frontage to Reginald Street, also locate their off street car spaces off Reginald Street. The proposed carport is inappropriate when there is an opportunity for it to be located to the rear. MRDCP, Section 5.1 objectives O1 - streetscape character, and O3 - compatibility with and support of future character, are not satisfied in this case, and the proposed carport is not supported. Car Parking and Access Access to the proposed carport requires the removal of a street tree. The removal of the tree is not supported by Council's Landscape Architect. The proposed carport is 4.5m wide and this is excessive in width for a single carport, the width of which is required to be 3m under the MRDCP. The site has access from the rear and the rear yard is not so constrained as to preclude the provision of a second car space within it. The applicant also submits that the original assessment did not include an option to provide a hardstand. However, this is not an option that is assessed as preferable to having no parking within the front yard. P5 of Section 5.2 in the RDCP clearly states:


“Where a garage/carport cannot be provided at the side or rear of a dwelling house or semi, a hardstand area forward of the building alignment which is integrated into the landscape character of the front yard is preferred” The subject site has two frontages and a capacity to provide parking at the rear. The capacity for parking at the rear has not been fully explored. Overshadowing Shadows cast from the carport are assessed as satisfactory. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. Subject to the deletion of the proposed carport, the proposed development is generally in keeping with the neighbourhood character. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan The proposed carport exceeds the 3m width provision for the internal dimension of a single car space. The proposed driveway width and gradient are acceptable with respect to the relevant design standard. The proposed carport does not respond adequately to dot point 4 of Section 3.1(Car Parking Design) of the DCP as it will dominate the streetscape by virtue of its width, height and overall bulk. 5.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 The development application has an estimated construction cost in excess of $100,000. As the Section 82A Review is a review of the DA in its entirety and the S94A plan applies, a change to the determination would necessitate the levying of a contribution. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The S82A Review does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer made the following comments to the original application: “Permission for removal of the tree is not given. There is no health or safety reason to remove this street tree. If the applicant is able to accommodate a driveway and carport to the Reginald Street frontage that should be considered sufficient. I can think of no explanation as to why a single dwelling would require a carport at either end of the property.” Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection to the original application subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The S82A Review application was notified between 24 May and 8 June 2007. No submission were received.


3 Letters from the properties below were included with the Review application. They confirm that they do not object to the proposed carport. • 4 Calliope Street; • 38 Orlando Avenue; and • 4 Reginald Street. 8.0 CONCLUSION Confirmation of the original determination of the development application is recommended. This includes the retention of Condition No 2 requiring the deletion of the carport which accords with the preferred position of the RDCP as discussed in the body of the report. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Architekton. The owner is Vivienne Gai McDonald. The estimated value of works including the previously approved works under DA 8.2006.381.1 is $205,647. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council confirm its determination of Development Application No. 8.2006.281.1. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plans • Delegated Report of 31 January 2007.


EP/142 32 Raglan Street DA NUMBER: 8.2007.104.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including

a new upper storey and construction of a swimming pool REPORTING OFFICER: Ben Lusher Team Leader (South) LODGEMENT DATE: 1 May 2007 (downtime 22 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

331

1

39

3

43B

39

17

95

3

7 113

3

113

3

33A33

4244

3133A

33 3535A

35B 37

41A

48 41

27

3432

4036

2123

23A

25

4747

50

47

46

2628

30

19

20

171214

1622

2418

10

333333333331

22

31313131313131313124A

2129

16 25

20 27

1412

2317

15

4

11A

86

6

19104A

11

18A

20A18

16A

44

42 45

46484

1E1D

1G

40A

43

353535353535353537

3941

3840

3634

1H

6666666

13 1115

66666664

6666666

8C30

22A

24

28

4

8 21

8A

6

10 10A

8

26

6A

34A

2321

19

22B

MUSGRAVER

AGLA

N

GR

AVE

ST

ST

ST

RD

CU

RR

AGH

BEEN

A

CHARLES DANSIE WALK

TRU

MFIE

LD LN

ROSE

MCLEOD

BCRES

CU

RR

AG

HB

EEN

APA

RK


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report assesses a proposal seeking approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at No. 32 Raglan Street. The subject application has been submitted as a result of a third party appeal being filed with the Land & Environment Court challenging the validity of the previously approved, near identical, application. The appeal has been filed on behalf of the northern adjoining neighbour raising the points that Council did not adequately consider Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004 and that the deferred commencement consent requirement left part of the works open for further determination and assessment. As per the previous application the main assessment issues relate to loss of views for No. 34 Raglan Street. It is acknowledged that the proposal will have a view impact, however the additions achieve reasonable view sharing as per Section 4.3 of the MRDCP. Despite non compliance with Council’s development standards relating to height and number of storeys the proposal is compatible with surrounding buildings in terms of building design, height and scale and adequate spatial relief is retained between buildings. Approval is recommended subject to the surrender of the previous consent.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site was inspected on 10 May 2007. The subject site is located on the western side of Raglan Street, between McLeod Street and Curraghbeena Point. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 18.72m to Raglan Street. The site falls 2.7m to the south-west at an average gradient of 10%. The site presently contains a detached dwelling which presents a single storey to Raglan Street and two storeys to the rear. Surrounding development consists mainly of two and three storey dwelling houses and multiple dwellings. The immediately adjoining property at 34 Raglan Street is provided with large windows and/or doors oriented toward the southern side boundary (i.e. facing the subject site) as well as diagonally across the rear of the subject site and towards the city centre. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 17 January 2006, Development Application No. 8.2006.19.1 was submitted to Council seeking approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new upper storey and construction of a swimming pool at the subject site. A report recommending approval of this application was presented to Council at its meeting on 18 July 2006. Notwithstanding the recommendation, Council resolved that the application be deferred for the applicant to consider alternate roof considerations in order to improve rear view corridors from 34 Raglan Street including a flat roof section at the rear.

Amended plans incorporating a flat roof design were submitted. A report to Council’s meeting on 21 November 2006 concluded that the amended plans were inferior to the earlier plans in terms of visual bulk, streetscape and views. The report maintained a recommendation of approval for the earlier set of plans. Council resolved that the recommendation for approval be adopted but subject to amended roof plans being submitted which provided for a flat roof over the rear section of the upper storey


comprising the second bedroom to a maximum RL of 55.33, with scope for the room to be relocated towards the south in order to accommodate the roof. The 21 November 2006 resolution was subject of a rescission motion which was subsequently upheld. On 11 December, Council resolved to issue a deferred commencement consent setting out the following deferred commencement requirement:

Part A

1. This consent shall not operate until the applicant submits the following information to the satisfaction of Council’s Heritage Advisor and Director Environment and Planning:

• Amended plans which retain a flat roof with a maximum RL of 55.33 over

bedroom 1 (in its present position) but revised footing over the street front side of the upper storey so as to provide a more traditional streetscape.

Such information shall be submitted within 3 months of the date of this determination.

On 19 December 2006 the applicant submitted details pursuant to the deferred commencement requirement. These details were presented to the Council’s Development Control Unit at its meeting of 24 January 2007 where it was resolved to adopt the officer’s recommendation to make the Consent operational. On 8 March 2007 a third party appeal to the Land & Environment Court was filed by the owners of 34 Raglan Street. The appeal seeks to challenge the validity of the consent on the basis that Council has issued this consent in breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is invalid, void and of no effect. In particular the points of this appeal are summarised as:

1. The Council failed to give any, or any real, proper and genuine, consideration to Draft SEPP1; and

2. In determining the application and issuing consent, the Council failed to ensure that

that the consent and its conditions were final and certain in that the deferred commencement requirement as stated above, left open for determination and assessment an aspect of the works.

On 13 April 2007 the Court gave directions to the involved parties that it would adjourn any proceeding of the appeal until 17 August 2007 on the basis that a new development application was submitted to Council on or before 2 May 2007. On 1 May 2007 development application 8.2007.104.1 was submitted to Council seeking consent for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new upper storey and construction of a swimming pool at 32 Raglan Street. This application is the subject of this report and is described and assessed below. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal involves alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including the following: • First floor addition comprising twin gabled roof form at the front and a flat roof section

along the north side and at the rear. Internally, the first floor contains two bedrooms, a bathroom, study, one terrace facing east and a further terrace facing south west;


• Internal alterations to the ground floor layout; • Removal of a bay window at the ground floor, eastern elevation and replacement with a

door and external stairs for access to/from the front garden; • Addition of a deck area to the west of ground floor; • Addition of a laundry/water closet at the basement (foundation) level; • Demolition of an existing garage in the rear yard (south-western corner of the site); • Demolition of an existing carport structure and replacement with a new one; • Construction of a swimming pool in the rear yard (north-western corner of the site); • Installation of three rainwater tanks (one located at the south-western corner of the

building and two located on the northern side of the building); and • Removal of four trees including a Variegated Box Elder and a Bhutan Cypress in the

north-eastern corner of the site and two Jacarandas in the rear yard. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. The Building Code of Australia classification for the proposal is Class 1a and 10b. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Contributions Plan • Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE


Building Height 8.5m 10.44m No*

Wall Height 7.2m 8.33m No*

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No*

Gross Floor Area

Existing 190.2m2 N/A

Proposed 139.8m2 N/A

Total 330m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.6 : 1 0.48 : 1 Yes

Landscaped Area

Existing 162.3m2 208.6m2 N/A


LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Proposed 281.5m2 290m2 Yes DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Basement – south

Ground floor – north

Ground floor – south

First floor – north

First floor – south

Swimming Pool – north

Swimming Pool – west

Carport – south

2m

0.9m

0.9 – 1.5m

1.5m

1.5m – 3m

2m

2m

0.9m

3.27m

1.81m

3.27m

1.81m

3.27m

1m – 1.6m

0.8m - 1.4m

Nil

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Swimming Pool – Height At or below ground level

At ground level Yes


680 No

Parking


No minimum

6m

1 space

3.27m

Yes

Yes

Fencing Height 1.2m 1.2m Yes



>2 hours

Yes

* SEPP No 1 submitted 5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004

A submission under SEPP 1 and the Draft SEPP has been made as part of the application in relation to non-compliance with clause 13 of MLEP 1998 – building height, wall height and two storey limit. The proposed maximum building height of 10.44m at the western end of the pitched roof over bedroom 2 has been ascertained by measurement from the ground level directly below the highest point of the roof. The proposed maximum wall height is 7.59m at the top of the flat roof at the northwest corner of bedroom 1. The proposal will result in a three storey dwelling. The applicant provided a detailed justification under (A) SEPP 1 and (B) Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004 which is extracted in part below:


A State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards Compliance with Objectives (of the Development Standards)

"The proposal has been specifically designed to minimise the impact on existing views from the adjoining property at 34 Raglan Street that presently has side views from the upper level living room level over the roof of the existing single storey house. The form and configuration of the roof has been resolve in consultation with Council officers. Their specific involvement was in direct response to design considerations and suggestions provided by Councillors in relation to a previous development proposal. The result is a design that includes a traditional pitched roof form at the front to complement the streetscape and a flat roof section along the north side and at the rear to maintain as much as possible of the side views from the upper level of the house at 34 Raglan Street. The site is approximately 150m – 200m from the foreshore of Little Sirius Cove and Sirius Cove Reserve. It is not highly visible from the harbour and only visible as part of the lower scale residential development on the ridgeline of this part of the Raglan Ridge. The colour and finishes and the varied roof design will enhance the appearance of the site overall and will complement the diverse scale, form and density of residential development in this locality. The house will maintain its relatively discreet presence amongst the surrounding residential development that includes dwelling houses of two and three storeys, dual occupancy developments and multi storey, multiple dwelling developments. The proposed additions will not be visually prominent or out of scale or character diverse form and character of the surrounding residential development. The overall design and varied form of the roof design comprising twin gables at the front and a flat roof along the north side and at the rear, and the materials and finishes proposed will complement the existing house and the adjoining houses and the diverse built form and landscape character of the area. For these reasons the proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the height, wall height and two storey height standard and a variation to the standard would therefore be reasonable and appropriate. The underlying objective of the wall height standard is to achieve a two storey building with a pitched roof and that objective will also be met. Is Strict Compliance with the Development Standard Unreasonable and Unnecessary Yes, otherwise the potential of the land to cater for a reasonable and appropriate addition to the existing dwelling house in accordance with the aims and objectives set out in the LEP and the objectives and planning guidelines of the Residential Development Control Plan may not be achieved. Compliance with the height, wall height and two storey height standard would not produce a building that was more in character with the existing and desired future character of development in this locality. The proposal maintains the traditional form and style of the existing house instead of the alternative of a full first floor addition


with a flat or low pitched roof, or the demolition of the house and a comprehensive redevelopment of the site for multiple dwellings. The departure from the height and two storey standard will not result in an adverse impact on adjoining properties and public places or the streetscape or this part of Raglan Street. Consequently, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. B Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development

Standards) 2004 Will the departure from the development standard result in a better environmental planning outcome than would have been achieved had the standard been complied with? Yes, because a development that complied with the 8.5m height standard would be higher in an area (north west corner) where the height of the building has been kept to a minimum and incorporates a flat roof to maintain as much as possible the views from the adjoining property. The departure from the development standard will result in a better environmental planning outcome than would be achieved had the standard been complied with, because it maintains a greater amount of private views than would otherwise be achieved by a building that was 8.5m in height. It also maintains the existing dwelling house for alterations and a first floor addition and that is a better environmental outcome in sustainability terms, compared with the demolition and redevelopment of the site for basement car parking and medium density or multiple dwellings that is a permissible use and development of the land in the 2(c) zone. Will the development be in the public interest by being consistent with the aims and objectives expressed in, or implied from, the development standard and the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out? (Officers note; compliance with the objectives of the development standards have been addressed under heading of same above) The proposal maintains the existing dwelling house and the density of one dwelling on the site. It complies with the landscaped area standard of Clause 15 of the LEP and will not involve the removal of any significant native trees from the site or the street. As previously outlined the two storey height and pitched form will be compatible with the varied character of this part of Raglan Street in terms of the height and bulk and scale of the development. The additions to the house have been intentionally designed to maintain as much as possible of the private views from the side windows of the adjoining house whilst endeavouring to achieve a reasonable development of the existing house for additional accommodation as well as a share of the existing views available to the south west. There are no public views over the site or the proposed additions that would be affected. The additions to the building particularly the new pitched roof and attic addition will enhance the form and appearance of the house and it will not be visually prominent or out of scale or character with surrounding residential development in the locality.


Comment: As detailed in the Numeric Control Summary Table in Section 5.1, the proposal breaches Council's maximum building height, wall height and number of storeys development standards. The submission above sets out a reasoned justification for the departures having made satisfactory regard to SEPP 1 and Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) 2004. Taking into consideration the points made in the applicant’s submission, strict compliance with the numeric standards is unnecessary in this case as compliance with the objectives of the development standards has been achieved. The question of the appropriateness of height in this case predominantly relates to the objective of protection of private views. In consideration of this objective it is noted that the element of the proposal that exceeds Council’s development standards does not unreasonably diminish views that are currently enjoyed by adjoining and nearby properties. Further to this, a large portion of the proposed work is designed in such a manner to ensure that much of the view currently enjoyed by the adjoining properties is maintained. The impact on these views is discussed in detail under Views heading below. Having considered the relevant points made by the applicant, the objection to the overall height, wall height and number of storeys standards is considered to be well founded and as such is supported. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as required by BASIX. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.3 SREP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 Pursuant to Clause 3 and 5 of the Harbour SREP the instrument applies to the subject site. The development is defined as land-based development. The proposal is generally consistent with the aims at cl.2 of the SREP. The subject site is within the foreshores and waterways area and as such the matters for consideration under Part 3 to the Harbour SREP apply. The proposed works are situated a distance in excess of 50m from MHWM and situated on an existing cultivated allotment. Consequently the proposal is not expected to generate any impact on existing biodiversity, ecology, or wetlands areas. The proposed additions will be visible from the waterway, however the development will be partly screened and framed by surrounding residential development. The proposal will read as a general extension of the existing built form and is of a scale which is compatible with the existing built form in the locality. Satisfactory visual amenity from the water will be maintained. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(c) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives.


Height As indicated at Section 5.0, the proposal is in breach of Council's building height, wall height and two storey limit. Refer to summary of SEPP 1 and Draft SEPP submission under 5.2.1 of the report. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with Council's FSR standard and meets the clause objectives. Landscaped Area The proposal complies with Council's landscaped area requirement and meets the clause objectives. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal will not have an adverse impact on the natural, visual or environmental qualities of Mosman. The proposal meets the objectives of Clause 27 of the MLEP. Excavation The proposal requires some excavation work however the proposed extent of excavation is not significant and will have no detrimental impact to neighbouring properties if properly carried out with controls for soil erosion, sedimentation and drainage in place during the construction stage. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The divided road of Raglan Street is listed as a heritage item of local significance under the MLEP. The proposed work will in no way detract from its significance. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale Section 4.2 of the MRDCP requires development to have a scale which is not excessive, have adequate side setbacks for spatial relief between buildings and be of a height and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development. As noted above in Section 5.2.1, the proposal does not comply with the building height and wall height development standards, however it is acceptable having regard to the submission provided by the applicant. The proposal complies with Council's FSR and setback requirements and the proposed height and scale is compatible with surrounding development. The building alignment will remain as existing. The perceived bulk of the proposal is generally consistent with the existing built form and the character of surrounding development. Planning Guideline P7 requires a 0.9m setback for single storey development. As indicated at Section 5.0, the proposed carport on the southern side of the site does not comply with the minimum setback requirements. P7 states that in certain circumstances, Council may allow a nil setback where there will be minimal adverse affects on adjoining properties. For development proposed at a nil setback, it must comply with the following requirements:


• The maximum wall height is 3.5 metres; • The proposal does not result in an adverse visual impact for surrounding properties; and • The proposal complies with the objectives and planning guidelines of Section 5.8 –

Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing of the MRDCP. The proposed carport replaces an existing carport which is of a similar height and scale. The carport is of simple-posted design, of a height approximately 3m. The proposed carport will not create any significant visual or overshadowing impact to the neighbour on the south. The proposed carport complies with the above requirements. To ensure privacy and overshadowing impacts are minimised, Planning Guideline P20 requires the building to observe a 45 degree height plane from ground level along the southern boundary. The proposal is 23o beyond the height plane, however the setback ensures adequate solar access to the neighbouring properties. The proposal will not create any significant privacy impact for the neighbouring properties. The proposal meets the objectives of Section 4.2 of the MRDCP and is satisfactory in terms of siting and scale. Views The objectives of Section 4.3 of the MRDCP require sensitive building and landscape design to allow reasonable sharing of views. The proposal will not result in any impact on public views. The proposed first floor will block some private views from No. 34 Raglan Street which currently enjoys a wide range of harbour, city and iconic views from a number of vantage points throughout the upper floor as is summarised in the view impact analysis table below.

Views from No. 34 Raglan Street

Type of views Whether or not it will be impacted by the proposal.

From the two windows on the upper floor, southern side of the dwelling (from Living rooms), windows 1 & 2.

From the window closer to the east (window 1): water views, city skyline and iconic views including the Opera house and Sydney Tower. From the window closer to the west (window 2): some glimpses of water views and views of the city skyline. Views from both windows to the water are partially blocked by the existing multi-storey residential building to the south. Refer to Picture No. 1, 2, 3 and 4

From window 1: The iconic views to the south-west and south-east will be partially blocked, with some city sky line remaining visible. From window 2: The views of the water will be blocked however the city skyline to the south-west will be remain visible. The views of the city skyline and the glimpses of water to the south-east will be substantially blocked.

From a window on the upper floor, eastern side of the dwelling (from Living room)

Water views towards the eastern suburbs Refer to Picture No. 5

The views will not be affected.


Views from No. 34 Raglan Street

Type of views Whether or not it will be impacted by the proposal.

From a balcony on the upper level located off the Living room, eastern side of the building

Water views Refer to Picture No. 6


From a balcony on the upper floor located off Living room, south-western corner of the building

Iconic view – Harbour Bridge. Refer to Picture No. 7


From a bedroom on lower floor, eastern side of the building

Water views


Picture No. 1 – Views to the south-west from window 1: The existing water views shown above will be blocked by the proposed roof form at the rear of the dwelling. RL 55.33 however views of the city skyline including Centrepoint tower will be maintained .


Picture No. 2 – Views to the south-west from window 2: Water views will be blocked by the ridgeline at RL 55.33 however the city sky line beyond would remain visible.

Picture No. 3 – Views to the south-east from window 1: The views above will be partially blocked.


Picture No. 4 – Views to the south-east from window 2: The views above will be substantially blocked by the proposal.

Picture No. 5 – Views to the south-east: The views above will not be affected by the proposal.


Picture No. 6 – Views to south: The views above will not be affected by the proposal.

Picture No. 7 – Views to north-east: The views above will not be affected by the proposal.

As summarised in Table 1 and the photographic information above, the proposal blocks some of the views for No. 34 Raglan Street.


A portion of the current views enjoyed from the side facing windows at No. 34 Raglan Street toward the south west will be blocked by the proposed development. The view that will be blocked however is the least sensitive of the views afforded to this property and are also quite difficult to maintain as they are side views over that part of the subject dwelling which is a currently single storey. The proposal has been designed in such a manner that the more valuable iconic and water views are maintained for No. 34 Raglan Street. The proposal retains the front and rear building alignment and as such, allows views from the front and rear of the building at No. 34 Raglan Street to be retained. The proposal complies with the MRDCP view sharing objectives. The proposal satisfies Council's view sharing controls and is satisfactory having regard for the view sharing planning principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004 NSWLEC 140). Planning Guideline P5 states that where there is potential for loss of a view, Council may require a maximum building height of less than 8.5m. The proposal exceeds the building height standard, however the SEPP 1 and Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards) objection is well founded. View sharing objectives are reasonably achieved and the proposal is assessed as satisfactory. Landscaping Section 4.4 of the MRDCP requires the preservation of mature and significant trees. The proposal includes the removal of four trees. Council's Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposal and has agreed to the removal of three trees, with the Jacaranda tree in the south-western corner of the site to be retained. The trees agreed to for removal are to be replaced with suitable species. Appropriate conditions are recommended in this regard. Streetscape and Building Design Section 5.1 of the MRDCP requires development to have a scale and design that is compatible with the neighbourhood character. As noted above, the locality is characterised by larger dwellings and multi-storey multiple dwellings. The proposed height and scale, building design and roof form is compatible with and complementary to the character of the surrounding development. The proposal meets the streetscape and building design objectives of the MRDCP. Carparking and Access The proposed carport is located behind the building alignment, at the side of the dwelling with a nil setback from the southern boundary. Refer to earlier comments under siting and scale. The proposed carport is satisfactory. Privacy Privacy aspects of the proposal are generally satisfactory. No. 34 Raglan Street however has raised concerns regarding the north facing study windows which may look into the windows to the upper floor living areas and lower floor bedroom and bathroom. A condition has been recommended requiring that the window up to a height of 1.6m from FFL be fixed obscure glazed.


Overshadowing Section 5.8 of the MRDCP Planning Guideline P3 requires “North-facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings…not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.” It is noted that the site is east-west oriented. The above requirement is often harder to achieve on east-west oriented sites than north-south oriented sites. However the proposal still meets the above requirement, and is therefore satisfactory. Swimming Pool As indicated in Section 5.0, the proposal does not comply with the setback requirements of the RDCP; however the proposal will maintain sufficient spatial relief from the neighbouring properties and sufficient plantings are proposed to mitigate the privacy impacts. The proposed swimming pool is in-ground, located at rear of the site. Though non-compliant with setbacks, it meets the objectives of Section 7.4 of the MRDCP. For safety reasons, conditions are recommended to meet the requirements of the Swimming Pool Act 1992. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan/Sirius/Bradleys townscape. The proposal meets the desired future character objectives of this townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) No minimum or maximum parking provision applies to dwelling house under this plan. The proposal includes one off-street car-parking space behind the building line and is satisfactory. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. 5.3.4 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is identified as being within the ‘Urban Development with Scattered Trees’ Terrestrial Ecological Community and meets the performance criteria provided for this type of Ecological Community. Further the Landscape Character Type for this area is identified as ‘Landscape Area Type 8’ which is a common foreshore landscape in Mosman. The proposed works are in keeping with the performance criteria as set out for this Landscape Area Type. As per cl.5.4, the additions incorporate appropriate articulation to avoid bulky facades, and have been designed to respond to the proportion and form of the existing building on the site. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Architect has made the following comments with regard to the previous application and upon assessment of the current proposal has confirmed that the same comments and conditions may apply to the current application.

"Removal of the Acer sp, Cupressus sp and the Jacaranda sp in the NW corner of the property are approved. Permission for the removal of the Jacaranda sp in the SW corner is not given."

Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. The NSW Rural Fire Service raised no objection subject to General Terms of Approval which have been incorporated into recommended conditions of consent. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 10 and 25 May 2007. Two submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 34 Raglan Street and • 5/31 Musgrave Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Breach of view sharing principles. Comment: The proposal will retain the most valuable views of No. 34 Raglan Street. View sharing objectives are achieved. Refer to further discussions under heading 5.2.1 & 5.3.1 of this report.

Breach of building height guidelines and two storey development standard. Comment: The proposal breaches the building height and two storey development standards, however the applicant has provided adequate justification to support these departures as is discussed in section 5.2.1 above.

Breach of privacy and security guidelines. Comment: The north facing upper floor study window may allow for visual intrusion into living areas of the adjoining property at No. 34 Raglan Street. The report recommends that a condition be placed on any consent granted so that the part of the window up to 1.6m above FFL be fixed obscure glazing.

Request a condition that the lighting arc(s) of all outdoor lights be contained with the boundaries of the subject property;

Comment: All the proposed work is within the boundaries of the subject site. To ensure the amenity of neighbouring properties is maintained, a condition has been recommended requiring all external lighting to comply with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 relating to 'Control of the obstructive effects of outdoor lighting'.

The current application is substantially different to the application previously approved which is indicated in the doubled estimated cost of works.


Comment: Despite the estimated difference in cost between the previous approved plans (8.2006.19.1) and current proposal, no design changes have been made by the applicant besides a slight increase in landscaped area toward the south western corner of the site. It would appear that the difference in the estimated cost of works stems from the Council’s updated building cost rate and also the applicant’s interpretation of “affected floor space”. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of height, scale, building design and character. The proposal is consistent with the view sharing objectives of the MRDCP and will have satisfactory privacy and overshadowing impacts for the neighbouring properties. Approval is recommended subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Melocco and Moore Architects. The owner is K E Turner. The estimated value of works is $1,560,000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected from No. 34 Raglan Street. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to the maximum building height, wall height and two storey limit within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

site, and the context of surrounding development; (c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts on

surrounding development; and (d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response. B. That subject to the surrender of consent to Development Application 8.2006.19.1,

Development Application No. 8.2007.104.1 be approved subject to the following conditions:

APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:


Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by

0406D-02 to 0406-D-09 Issue L (inclusive)

30 April 2007 Melocco & Morroe Architects

L01C 24 August 2006 Selena Hannan Landscape Design

Job no. 05196 Dwg no. SW01(D), SW02(C), SW03(E), SW04(D), SW05(D), SW06(C)

28 August 2006 (C)

10 April 2007 (D & E)

O'Hearn Consulting P/L

Survey 04144 24 September 2004

Philip C.K Hooi P/L

Document title Date of document Prepared by

Statement of Environmental Effects

12 April 2007 Longitude Planning P/L

SEPP 1 Objection and Draft SEPP Objection

undated Longitude Planning P/L

Bushfire Risk Assessment 6 May 2005 Fire Base Consulting

Tree Report December 2005 Selena Hannan Landscape Design

BASIX Certificate A11060 23 May 2007 Applicant

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the release of the Construction Certificate. Conditions may require the submission of additional information with the Construction Certificate application. Applicants should also familiarise themselves with conditions in subsequent sections and provide plans in accordance with any design requirements contained therein.

Construction Certificate Application Plans

2. Two copies of architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

The plans are to incorporate and note any changes from the approved development application plans as required by conditions of this consent.

For applications involving alterations and additions, one set of plans should be coloured which indicate the extent of new works.


Dilapidation Report – Council Assets

3. To assist with an assessment of claims for the refund of the security deposit over Council’s property, a dilapidation report must be submitted. The report must document and provide photographs that clearly depict any existing damage to the road, kerb, gutter, footpath, driveways, street trees, street signs or any other Council assets in the vicinity of the development. Any damage not shown in this manner will be assumed to have been caused as a result of the site works undertaken and must either be rectified at the applicant’s expense or compensated by deduction from the security deposit.

Excavation, Backfilling and Support for Neighbouring Buildings

4. Excavation works shall not commence prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate or the issue of any relevant notices to adjoining owners, the Principal Certifying Authority or Council as required by other conditions of this consent.

5. A report shall be prepared by a practicing Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to Council or the Accredited Certifier detailing the structural condition of adjoining structures / property and their ability to withstand the proposed excavation, backfilling and construction. The report must investigate site and soil conditions and outline any recommended measures to ensure that no damage will occur to the structures / property during or subsequent to the carrying out of works

Retaining Walls

6. If soil conditions require it, retaining walls or other approved methods necessary to prevent the movement of soil, together with associated stormwater drainage measures, shall be designed by a civil engineer or other appropriately qualified person. Details of any retaining walls shall accompany plans and specifications submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

Sydney Water

7. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Service to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans must be appropriately stamped prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. For Quick Check agent details please refer to the website www.sydneywater.com.au, see Building Developing and Plumbing then Quick Check or telephone 13 20 92.

Utility Services

8. The applicant shall consult with the relevant public utility providers and meet any costs imposed by those providers for alterations to mains or services required as a consequence of this approval.

Materials & Finishes

9. Materials and finishes shall be complimentary to the character and streetscape of the area. Highly reflective roofing materials shall not be used. Details of finished external surface materials, including colours and texture, must be to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council or the Accredited Certifier.

http://www.sydneywater.com.au/


Long Service Levy

10. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate of 0.35% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more.

Security Deposit

11. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5,000 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

Utility Services


Council Property

13. Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”.

Drainage

14. Stormwater shall be directed to the street gutter. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Guidelines For Stormwater Drainage Systems”.

Section 94A Contribution

15. Pursuant to Section 94A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution must be paid to Council for the purpose of purchasing and embellishing public open space if the value of works exceeds $100,000.00.

To enable Council to determine whether a contribution is payable and if so what amount, a 'Cost Summary Report' form must be completed if the value of work is less than $1,200,000.00 or a 'Detailed Cost Report' form completed by a member of the Australian Institute of Quantified Surveyors if the value of work is $1,200,000.00 or greater. Copies of these forms are attached to this consent and can also be obtained from the 'Policies and Forms' section of Council's website at www.mosman.nsw.gov.au

Contribution rates may be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index.

This condition is imposed under Mosman Municipal Council's Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006. The Plan may be inspected at Council's offices within the Civic Centre, Mosman Square, Mosman.

http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/


PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE WORKS

The following measures must be satisfied prior to the commencement of site works, including any works relating to demolition, excavation or vegetation removal.

Notice of Intent to Commence Site Works

16. In accordance with Section 81A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, no site works (including building works, demolition, excavation or the removal of vegetation) are to commence until:

(i) the Construction Certificate has been issued; (ii) the person benefiting from the consent has appointed a Principal Certifying

Authority (PCA) by way of completing Form 7A (attached at the end of the consent);

(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.

(iv) the person benefiting from the consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, has (by way of completing Form 7C): • appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder

of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and • notified the PCA of any such appointment; and • unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor

of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work; and

(v) the person benefiting from the consent has given Council at least 2 days’ notice of the person’s intention to commence the erection of the building by way of completing Form 7D.

Home Building Act

17. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:

(a) in the case of work to be done by the holder of a contractor licence under that Act:

(i) the name and licence number of the contractor; and (ii) the name of the insurer by whom the work is insured under Part 6 of that

Act, (b) in the case of work to be done by the holder of an owner-builder permit under

that Act, the name and permit number of the owner-builder.

If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.


Protection of Adjoining Areas

18. If site or building works will:

• cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or unsafe; or

• involve the enclosure of a public place; or • have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects

then a temporary hoarding, fence or awning must be erected between the work site and the adjoining area. Any such hoarding, fence or awning must be removed when the work has been completed. The fence must be constructed prior to the commencement of works and where adjoining public land shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the fixing of posters or graffiti.

Protection of Landscape Features

19. To limit the potential for damage to the following trees to be retained, the area beneath its canopy must be fenced prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works.

Species Location

Jacaranda sp south-western corner of the site

The fencing must extend 2000mm beyond the tree’s trunk, be kept in place until the completion until the completion of building works and be marked by appropriate signage notifying site workers that the tree is to be retained.. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

All areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing shall be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm (or where steep grades prevent this, the area shall be protected with suitable material) to facilitate moisture levels. Adequate soil moisture must be maintained during the course of construction works through the implementation of an irrigation program or temporary irrigation system.

Sediment & Erosion Controls

20. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls shall be constructed prior to commencement of any site works in order to prevent the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Environment and Conservation’s "Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Manual Volume 1, 4th Edition March 2004”.

Note: This document is available from the Department of Planning.

Lapsing of Consent if Site Works Not Commenced

21. In accordance with Section 95(2) of the Act, this consent shall lapse unless work has physically commenced on the land within 2 years from the date of the consent or in instances where no work is required, the use has commenced within 2 years from the date of the consent.


Public Liability Insurance

22. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation, demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.

DURING SITE WORKS / CONSTRUCTION

The following conditions must be satisfied during site and construction works.

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

23. All works are to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

NSW Rural Fire Service – General Terms of Approval

24. Construction must comply with AS3959 – 1999 level 1 ' Construction of Buildings in bushfire prone areas'.

25. The entire property shall be managed as an 'Inner Protection Area' as outlined within 4.2.2 in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2001.

26. The structure shall incorporate gutterless roofing or leafless guttering to prevent the build up of flammable material.

Demolition

27. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.

28. Where asbestos material shall be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall be re-used or sold.

Signs for Building and Demolition Sites

29. A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any work site on which building work or demolition work is being carried out:

(a) showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the work; and

(b) showing their name of the person in charge of the work and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside work hours; and

(c) stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign shall be maintained while the building work or demolition work is being carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.


Where Council is the nominated PCA, these signs may be purchased from Council’s offices for a fee of $25.

This condition does not apply in relation to building work or demolition work that is carried out inside, and does not affect the external walls of, an existing building.

Site Work Hours

30. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works shall be restricted to between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. Inaudible site works may also take place between 7.00am and 8.00am on Saturdays. No site works shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

Unless otherwise approved within a Construction Traffic Management Plan, construction vehicles, machinery, goods or materials shall not be delivered to the site outside the approved hours of site works.


31. If an excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

• preserve and protect the building from damage; • if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and • at least 7 days before excavating, give notice of an intention to excavate to the

adjoining owner and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work.

32. All excavations and backfilling must be executed safely and if necessary properly guarded in accordance with appropriate professional standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.


33. Sedimentation and erosion controls must be effectively maintained at all times during the course of construction and shall not be removed until the site has been stabilised or landscaped to the Principal Certifying Authority’s satisfaction.

Council Property

34. The land and adjoining areas shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. No construction vehicles, building materials, waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored on the road or footpath for the duration of works unless separate approval has been obtained from Council’s Traffic Committee for the establishment of a Construction Zone. Under no circumstances will any person be allowed to mix or dispose of concrete, mortar or slurry within Council property.



Drainage



37. All natural landscape features including trees and other vegetation, natural rock outcrops, soil and watercourses shall remain undisturbed except where affected by necessary works detailed on approved plans.

Tree Preservation

38. All street trees and trees on private property that are protected under Mosman Council’s Tree Preservation Order 2003, shall be retained except where Council's prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant Construction Certificate, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicular access roads and parking areas.

Replacement Tree 39. In accordance with Council's Street Tree Master Plan 1 x 45 litre Lophostemon

confertus is to be planted in the street verge and maintained for three months to ensure establishment of the roots.

Leighton Green Cypress 40. To reduce the potential for adverse amenity effects such as overshadowing, loss of

views, and loss of plant diversity, Leighton Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, shall not be planted on the site for the life of the development. Further information on Leightons Green Cypress may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees”. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

BASIX Certificate

41. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate.

Siting, Height and View Loss

42. To ensure that siting, height and view loss objectives are achieved, all wall locations, finished floor levels and ridge levels must be in accordance with that approved under this consent.

NB: The Principal Certifying Authority may require a compliance certificate from a registered surveyor prior to the pouring of a concrete floor or the fixing of roof cladding to verify compliance.



Swimming Pools & Outdoor Spas

43. For safety reasons, access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Act, 1992. The fencing or measures must be completed before any water is placed in the pool.

44. Any mechanical equipment associated with a pool, spa or water feature shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point at the boundary with another property, including a public place.

45. To maintain the visual amenity of the area, devices or structures used for heating swimming pool water must not be placed on the roof of any building where it is visible from a public place.

46. In order to protect night time amenity for surrounding properties, any lighting installed for the pool/spa must avoid glare and light spill onto adjoining recreation spaces, habitable rooms and public places.

47. To ensure the proper disposal of polluted waters and to avoid runoff nuisance for downstream properties, all drainage including any overflow waters associated with the pool, spa or water feature must be pipe drained to the nearest sewer system in accordance with requirements of Sydney Water. No drainage, including overflow from a pool/spa/feature shall enter Council’s stormwater system.

Lighting

48. To maintain amenity for adjoining properties, all external lighting installed shall comply with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 ‘Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting’.

Toilet Facilities

49. To provide reasonable worker amenity, toilet facilities shall be provided at or in the vicinity of the work site for the duration of site work activities.

Local Government Act 1993

50. This consent does not authorise the carrying out of any of the following activities which require the separate approval of Council under Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993:

• Place a waste storage container in a public place • Swing or hoist goods across or over any part of a public road by means of a

lift, hoist or tackle projecting over the footway

Note: A person who fails to obtain an approval or who carries out an activity otherwise than in accordance with an approval is guilty of an offence under Sections 626 and 627 of the Local Government Act 1993.

Approved Plans

51. A copy of the stamped approved plans must be kept on site for the duration of site works and be made available upon request to either the Principal Certifying Authority or an officer of the Council.


52. To ensure reasonable privacy for the adjoining property, the north facing upper floor study window (labelled as W09) shall be fixed obscure glazed to a height of 1.6m above finished floor level.

Critical Stage Inspections

53. To ensure building works are carried out properly and in accordance with the conditions of this consent, with the Building Code of Australia and or with relevant Australian Standards, the following critical stage inspections are to be carried out:

• At the commencement of the building work;

• After the excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings;

• Prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element;

• Prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building element;

• Prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas;

• Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections;

• Fire separation if the building is within 900mm of the property boundary prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building;

• Smoke alarms prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building;

• Pool fencing prior to filling the pool with water; and

• Final inspection after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

The critical stage inspections must be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) or, if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority excepting the final inspection which must be carries out by the PCA.

Notes: Records of the above critical stage inspections will be required to be submitted prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate – see later conditions of consent.

If you intend engaging Council to undertake inspections, please telephone the area Building Surveyor to arrange a suitable time.

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Final Inspection Fee to Release Footpath Security Deposit

54. Prior to lodgement of the Occupation Certificate, an inspection fee of $110.00 is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028. Once the Occupation Certificate is lodged, this inspection will be undertaken in order to release the footpath security deposit.


Record of Inspections Carried Out

55. In accordance with clause 162B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the certifying authority responsible for the critical stage inspections must make a record of each inspection as soon as practicable after it has been carried out. Where Council is not the PCA, the PCA is to forward a copy of all records to Council.

The record must include details of:

• The development application and construction certificate number; • The address of the property at which the inspection was carried out; • The type of inspection; • The date on which it was carried out; • The name and accreditation number of the certifying authority by whom the

inspection was carried out; and • Whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying

authority who carried it out.


56. For safety reasons, a resuscitation chart and warning sign containing information as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation 1998 must be erected within the pool enclosure and shall be maintained in a clearly legible condition.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION

The following condition must be satisfied prior to occupation of the development.

Compliance Certificates and Inspection Records

57. Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of any compliance certificates and or records of inspections received by the PCA shall be forwarded to Council prior to occupation or commencement of the use.

Occupation Certificate

58. Occupation or use, either in part or full, shall not take place until an Occupation Certificate has been issued. The Occupation Certificate must not be issued unless the building is suitable for occupation or use in accordance with its classification under the Building Code of Australia and until all preceding conditions of this consent have been complied with.

Where Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority, a copy of the Occupation Certificate together with registration fee must be provided to Council.

ADVICE / NOTES

The following points are issued as advice to the applicant. They do not form conditions of the Notice of Determination.

(i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of Determination. Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.


(ii) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

(iii) If you are unsatisfied with this determination, Section 97 of the Act gives you the right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court within 12 months of the determination.

(iv) A public inquiry by a Commission of Inquiry was not held under Section 119 of the Act.

(v) Other public authorities may have separate requirements and should be consulted in the following respects:

• Australia Post for the positioning and dimensions of mail boxes in new commercial and residential developments;

• AGL Sydney Limited for any change or alteration to gas line infrastructure; • Energy Australia for any change or alteration to electricity infrastructure or

encroachment within transmission line easements; • Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their

telecommunications infrastructure.

(vi) This decision does not ensure compliance with the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Applicants may wish to investigate their potential for liability under that Act.

(vii) Failure to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act and/or the conditions of this consent may result in the serving of penalty notices or legal action through the Land and Environment Court.

(viii) In accordance with section 81A of the Act, the person benefiting from this consent is notified that if Council is engaged as the Principal Certifying Authority, critical stage inspections to be carried out will include those listed under the sub-heading “Critical Stage Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.

(ix) All references to “the Act” under this consent relate to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

(x) New and renovated pools greater than 10,000 litres will require a permit from Sydney Water before being filled.

(xi) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested that plans be lodged in PDF format.



EP/143 19 Rickard Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2007.76.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

comprising a new first floor addition, ground floor additions to front and rear and extension of garage

REPORTING OFFICER: Julie Van Look, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 27 March 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

DP 17066

12 DP

1672

68DP 300711

2 3

11

D

DP

8413

9

DP

954

DP

9637

15

DP 1571

51

DP 3007

DP 843294

21

DP 975151

1

PT5

C

1DP 151690

DP 178559

DP 850695

DP

9951

SP

1B

DP

DP 366633

DP 78318

DP

8044

93

DP

DP 9951

DP 102372

DP 204264

DP 330223DP 342723

D P354322

DP 9

951

DP 9

951

DP 9

951

DP 364835DP 393765

D

2 3

25A

1

B

B

22

1

DP

1356

40

101

21

921

36

39

35

37

40

38

16

A 18

19

15 A

E43

DP 9951

7170

44

3

12B

26

114

A

32A

3028

2927

B

3

2

4

5

1

P 9951

3

1

2

B

DP 341773

DP 413009

DP 544641

1070634

1

DP 663573

DP 9951

2

14

112

A

DP 1070630

DP 832219

2

7

P 1058316

2

4

6

13A

14A

19

42

1721

12

8

17

10

15

6

1115 13

610

13

3232A

3630

34

15

3840

23

40A42

44

4648

8

25 27

27

25

21-2

3

19

8

10

3

3

77

9

16

12A

14

1113

1

28

18

20

24

26A

22

26

WHITING

SIMPSO

STM

AJO

R

ING

BEAC

HRD

AVE

RICKARD

AVE

RICKARD


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal consists of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising a new first floor, additions to the ground level and the extension of the integrated garage. The proposal is compliant with Council’s numeric controls with the exception of the height controls where the wall, building height and the number of storeys are exceeded. SEPP1 objections have been submitted for these non compliances which are supported. An objection was received relating to view loss from two bedrooms of the neighbouring dwelling due to the extension of the ground floor living room. The views from the bedrooms are not extensive and the primary views from the dwelling are unaffected. The applicant has undertaken to replace existing pencil pines with a more suitable species in order to mitigate future view loss and this is considered to be a positive outcome. The proposal is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located between the upper and lower sections of Rickard Avenue as it loops around on itself. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 19.81m to Rickard Avenue and a rear frontage of 20.06m also to Rickard Avenue. The site falls 7.7m to the west at an average gradient of 29%. The site presently contains a single storey dwelling house with a single garage built into the foundation space. Surrounding development consists of one and two storey single dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND There is no recent planning history. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • additions to the existing ground floor; • construction of a new first floor • excavation to widen the garage • construction of a new external front stair; and


• associated landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards 2004 • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m2 531.1m2 N/A

Building Height 8.5m 8.7m (+2.4%) No (SEPP 1)

Wall Height 7.2m 8.5m (+18%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area


Proposed 101.95m2 N/A

Total 246.94m2 N/A


Landscaped Area

Existing 87m2 216m2 N/A

Proposed 148m2 191m2 Yes

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) N/A N/A N/A DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Ground floor – North

Ground floor - South

First floor - North

First floor - South

0.9m

0.9m

1.5m

1.5m

0.9m (existing)

0.9m (existing)

3.3m

4m

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Parking


On merit

6m

2 spaces

7m

Yes

No





> 2 hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – Pass

Thermal - Pass

Energy – Pass

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and Draft

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards 2004 The applicant has submitted a SEPP1 objection relating to the development standards contained in Clause 13 of the MLEP, specifically in regards to the maximum number of stories, the maximum building height and the maximum wall height. The SEPP1 objection is discussed below under height. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposal is largely compliant with the numerical controls of Clause 13, with the exception of the small gabled roof section on the front elevation and the section where the first floor additions sits over the garage. The applicant’s justification for the objection is as follows:

Compliance with the objectives

a. to protect public and private views, and

Public and private views are not affected.

b. To minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores, and

The property is not visible from the harbour or foreshores.


c. To ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing buildings fin terms of height and pitched roof form, and

The building maintains and enhances the traditional form of the existing building. The streetscape elevation shows that the building is consistent with the height of adjoining buildings. The overall height of the proposal is very similar to that of No 21 however because of the style of the proposal and the stepping back of the first floor, the overall impact of No 19 will be more consistent with the desired streetscape character.

d. To minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in existing residential areas.

As demonstrated in the Statement of Environmental Effects the proposal represents the realisation of the “reasonable development potential of the site” The proposal minimises the bulk of the building by: • Deleting the large gables that currently dominate the front elevation. • Incorporating the first floor addition partially into the roof space of the

existing building. • Setting the proposed first floor addition back from the existing front face of

the building. Comment With regard to overall and wall height, the area of non compliance is minor and does not add significantly to the appearance of bulk. The gable feature adds to the modulation of the façade and therefore contributes to the streetscape. With regard to the number of storeys, the non compliance occurs only where the proposed first floor addition sits over the garage which is built into the foundation space of the existing dwelling. The first floor addition is set back from the front of the dwelling and thus the front façade will not present a bulky appearance to the street. The northern and eastern elevations of the dwelling will present as two storeys. The non compliance with the numeric controls of Clause 13 will not have a material impact and the SEPP1 objection is supported. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with the objectives and numerical controls of Clause 14. Landscaped Area The proposal complies with the objectives and numerical controls of Clause 15. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is not readily visible from the harbour. The materials to be used for the proposed addition will complement the existing dwelling and a dominance of landscape over built form will be maintained. The proposal will not have a material impact on the area as viewed from the harbour.


Excavation Excavation is limited to that required for the extension to the garage and for footings and is acceptable. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.2 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposal complies with the numerical controls of Clause 4.2 regarding setbacks and its floorspace ratio is also satisfactory. The first floor addition has been set back from the existing ground floor which reduces the appearance of bulk and the façade is suitably modulated. Views No. 21 Rickard Avenue has views of the CBD including the Sydney Opera House from two bedrooms on its southern elevation. The proposal includes an extension of 1.9m to the living room towards the front boundary which may impinge on these views. The extension is at the ground floor level, is single storey and is set back 3.2m from the side boundary. The first bedroom is located at the south-western corner of the house and has a window to the side and a window on the front elevation. The view from the side window will be reduced, however, the view from the front window will not be affected by the proposed extension. The views from the second bedroom are largely obscured by existing planting including a row of pencil pines. It should be noted that: • the views from the main indoor and outdoor living areas are not affected by the proposal, • the affected views are across the side boundary, • the view from the second bedroom is largely obscured by existing planting, and • the first bedroom has a second window, the views from which are unaffected by the

proposal. The applicant has expressed a willingness to amend the landscape plan to remove the existing pencil pines along the boundary with No. 21 Rickard Road in order to mitigate any future view loss. The view loss is not extensive and the proposal is supported in this regard. In the event of an approval, it is recommended that the applicant be required to submit an amended landscape plan which deletes the pencil pines adjacent to the boundary with No. 21 Rickard Road and replaces them with plantings of a species which has a mature height of not more than 2m.


Landscaping The proposed landscaped area exceeds Council’s requirement and a dominance of landscaping over built form will be maintained. Little change is required to accommodate the additions to the dwelling and the landscaping will be largely unchanged. The applicant has expressed a willingness to amend the landscape plan to remove the existing pencil pines along the boundary with No. 21 Rickard Road in order to mitigate any future view loss. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed additions will blend well with the existing dwelling and surrounding development. The façade is sufficiently modulated to reduce the appearance of bulk and the altered front entrance way and additional stairs will better address the street. Privacy The only additional window on the side elevations is to a bathroom and therefore will not have a material impact on privacy. The proposed balcony is small and is accessed from the main bedroom. It faces the street and is set well back from the side boundaries. The balcony will not have a material impact on privacy. Overshadowing The proposed first floor addition will result in increased shadowing to No. 21 Rickard Road, however, this is within the limits of the MRDCP requirement. Garage The dwelling has an existing single garage in the foundation space. The proposal seeks to widen the garage in order to accommodate a second vehicle. The proposed garage is 7m wide which exceeds Council’s controls by 1m, however, the garage will present to the street as two single garages and is acceptable. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposed additions and alterations are in keeping with the existing dwelling as well as the surrounding development. 5.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES There were no comments from Council departments or state authorities. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 11 April 2007 and 27 April 2007. 1 submission was received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 21 Rickard Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

The extension of the lounge room towards the west will cause loss of water and city views including the Sydney Opera House;

Comment: The view loss is primarily to the second bedroom and is already obscured by existing planting, the first bedroom has a second window which captures the same views and the views from the primary living areas are unaffected. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against the relevant statutory and policy controls and is compliant with the exception of MLEP Clause 13 for which a SEPP1 objection has been submitted. The view loss to the neighbouring dwelling at 21 Rickard Road is not extensive and will be mitigated by the removal of the pencil pines. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Dixon Andrews Architects. The owners are Ms Andrea and Mr Scott Speedie. The estimated value of works is $458,775.00. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2007.76.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



DA 01 March 2007 Dixon Andrews Architects










LPDA 07 – 189/1 March 2007 Conzept Landscape Architects



March 2007 Unknown

SEPP1 Objection March 2007 Unknown







Landscaping

3. The pencil pines within the front garden adjacent to No. 21 Rickard Avenue shall be removed. An amended landscape plan is to be submitted showing the removal of the pencil pines adjacent to the boundary with No. 21 Rickard Road and their replacement with shrubs which have a mature height of not more than 2m.






Retaining Walls


Sydney Water

7. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water assets, sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for:

• Quick Check agents details – see ‘Building, Developing and Plumbing’ then ‘Quick Check’ or;

• Guidelines for building over / adjacent to Sydney Water assets – see ‘Building, developing and Plumbing’ then ‘Building and Renovating’.

The consent authority or a private accredited certifier must ensure that a Quick check agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the issue of any Construction Certificate.

Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

9. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $2,500 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if



Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.



















Home Building Act










• have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects

then a temporary hoarding or fence must be erected prior to the commencement of works between the work site and the adjoining area to the following standards:

• if adjoining public land it shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the graffiti

• the toe of the hoarding fence or its supporting structure must not protrude onto Council land including footpath areas so as to avoid a trip hazard

• the hoarding fence must be securely fixed to withstand strong winds

• the fence must have only one point of entry which must correspond with the vehicle crossing and have inward opening gates or gates which are removable and fitted with a locking device

• the hoarding/fence must have no protruding bolts nails or similar devices which may cause injury.

The hoarding/fence must be removed when the work has been completed.


Where construction requirements or site constraints necessitate the hoarding or fencing being located on Council land, a Footpath/Nature Strip/Roadway Occupation form is to be lodged with Council and all fees paid prior to the hoarding/fencing being erected. (a copy of the form is available on Council's website).

Hoarding or fencing on Council land must maintain a minimum of 1500 clear footpath width at all times (lesser distances may be considered in exceptional circumstances).















(b) showing the name of the person in charge of the work and a telephone number at which that person may be contacted outside work hours; and






Site Work Hours



Protection of Public Places

20. The work site shall be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be a source of danger to persons using a public place or upon instruction by Council to enhance the safety and security of the area in which the work is located.








Council Property





Tree Preservation


BASIX Certificate


Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans


























PRIOR TO OCCUPATION








ADVICE / NOTES













(viii) In accordance with section 81A of the Act, the person benefiting from this consent is notified that if Council is engaged as the Principal Certifying Authority, critical stage inspections to be carried out will include those listed under the sub-heading “Critical


Stage Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.


(x) When private certifiers are registering Part 4A Certificates with Council, it is requested that plans be lodged in PDF format.



EP/144 719 Military Road (Mosman RS Club) DA NUMBER: 8.2006.439.2 PROPOSAL: S96(2) modification of consent to delete condition 1A

relating to the solid masonry balustrade to the smokers' terrace

REPORTING OFFICER: Bertha Gunawan, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 25 May 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

”

88

5856 54

81

84

86

76

77A79

7480

82

850830

832

842

46 - 4850 - 56

61

70 - 72

8228 14

824

806

6058

6466

874

800786

39

790

7565

6377

7371

6967

77B

5052

5753 - 55

5159

47

4240

34

4945

4341

770782

766

681685

669

858

854

880

862

868

1 743

739

769769

705

40

719

733

701699

707713

122

410

86

14

2

2826

29

23 25 27

2218 20

24

16

86 14 10 6 4

9

1515A

1311

75

17

3028

32 34 36

1A3

1

32

5

15

73

20 24

ALMORA

ST

N

RE

DANM

USTO

N

RED

AN

POST

RD

MILITAR

Y

LNO

FFICE

AVE

RDGLAD

STON

E

ST

KES

TON

LN

LEN

NO

N

LN

RESC

ENT

GOULDSBURY

MILITAR

Y

LN

LN

PARK


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the Council meeting held on 3 April 2007 condition 1A was imposed to amend the smokers' terrace balustrade from metal to solid masonry. The applicant now seeks to amend this condition to allow an open metal balustrade to achieve compliance with the Smoke-Free Environment Act 2000 which requires 75% free air flow within the area. The proposed amendment includes integrated 400mm wide planter boxes to provide some screening to the area and this is assessed as a more desirable streetscape outcome compared with the solid masonry balustrade. Approval is recommended subject to conditions requiring the top rail of the balustrade being designed to not allow glasses to be rested upon it and the provision of planting within the planter boxes as prescribed by Council's Landscape Architect.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Military Road, between Gouldsbury Street and Belmont Street. The site is irregular in shape with vehicular access from Lennox Lane. The site contains a three storey building owned and occupied by the Mosman RS Club. Surrounding development consists of a range of retail, commercial and residential uses within the Mosman Town Centre. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening Yes * Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

* Lane widening has already taken place. No further dedication is required. 2.0 BACKGROUND Council decided on 3 April 2007 that Development Application 8.2006.439.1 be approved for alterations to the Club comprising a ground floor street front terrace for smokers. Condition 1A of the consent states: “1A. The metal balustrading to the smokers' terrace shall be replaced with solid masonry

wall. These details must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Environment and Planning prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.”

On 25 May 2007 the applicant submitted an application to modify the above consent, which is detailed in Section 3 below.


3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal comprises: • replacement of the masonry balustrade with an open vertical member steel

balustrade, in-set from the front boundary alignment by 400mm; • installation of a 400mm wide integrated planter box between the balustrade and front

boundary; • provision of new stonework cladding on the street elevation below the planter box. The applicant seeks either the deletion of condition 1A or its modification as follows:

“The balustrade design to the smokers’ terrace shall be complimentary to the character and streetscape of the area. Details of the balustrade and finishes are to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Environment and Planning prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate”.

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan - Open Space 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Building Setback Within the alignment along the street frontage

Within the alignment along the street frontage

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility 3(a3). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a club and are permissible with consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 16. The development is acceptable within the zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that:


(a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was originally granted;

(b) aspects of the proposed modification do not relate to conditions imposed by NSW Police in their capacity as an approval body;

(c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) no submissions were received. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within the immediate proximity of a heritage item. The site is however, within the Military Road Heritage Conservation Area which is described as “a marvellous microcosm of the range of architecture…, distinctively combining retail and residential uses in a unified, lively and diverse linear and curvilinear streetscape. Its scale is pleasantly moderate and the variety of forms, materials, textures and colours is full of interest. The successful integration of some facades of later and very recent vintage, indicated that good design is an ageless quality. The ‘village’ atmosphere prevails…” The RS Club is not an item of heritage significance in the streetscape. The proposed modifications are sympathetic to the character of the building and will not diminish any contributory value of the building in the streetscape. The proposal will not compromise the heritage significance of the area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan (MBCDCP) Mosman Junction Town Centre Streetscape impacts are satisfactory. The proposed planter boxes will be complementary to the planters at the Club entrance and the planting contained therein will filter views into the smokers' area. Traditional Shopfront Terraces The proposal will provide a break in the streetwall and will result in a better building interface with the public domain. Heritage Items and Conservation Areas The proposed open style balustrade complements the building appearance and is in keeping with the character of the area. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan - Open Space The proposed modification application does not give rise to a contribution under the Plan. 5.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modifications do not necessitate change to any of these matters.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Comment was sought from Council's Landscape Architect in respect to the plant species and plant spacing within the planter boxes. These comments have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent. The proposed modifications will not compromise the requirements previously imposed by NSW Police. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 29 May and 12 June 2007. No submission was received. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modifications will achieve compliance with the requirements of the Smoke-Free Environment Act and will achieve a better appearance than the previously approved masonry balustrade. Approval of the modification application is recommended subject to the deletion of condition 1A and its replacement by new conditions as outlined in the recommendation. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Global Projects (NSW) Pty Ltd. The owner is Mosman RS Club. The estimated value of works remains the same as the original development. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2006.439.2 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following: A. Amending condition No. 1 as follows:

1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following stamped

approved plans and documentation, except where amended by later conditions of consent:


DA 510 Rev B 21 May 2007 Global Projects



October 2006 Andrew Martin Planning Pty Ltd

Applicant’s letter

Statement of Environmental

25 May 2007 Global Projects


Effects 22 May 2007

B. Delete former condition 1A; and C. Include the following conditions: Balustrade 1A. The top rail of the balustrade is to be designed such that drinking glasses cannot be

rested upon it. Planter Box 1B. The planting to be installed within the planter boxes shall be capable of growing to a

height of 1.6-1.8m and must be shade tolerant (e.g. varieties of Viburnum, Callistemon, Grevillea or Photinia). The plants shall be planted at minimum centres of 0.6m at a minimum pot size of 25L. These details shall be provided prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Landscaping 54. The screen planting contained within the planter boxes shall be maintained as a

dense screen of not less than balustrade height throughout the life of the development.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS • A4 Plan


EP/145 5 Raglan Street DA NUMBER: 8.2003.147.6 PROPOSAL: S96(2) modification to the consent to extend the boatshed,

re-align decking and reconstruct sea-wall REPORTING OFFICER: Bertha Gunawan, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 18 April 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

2224

1012 17

1416

2018

715

7B

8

911

35

6A 6

4

1

2

3

21

16 2

1412

2315

4

11A

86

6

1719

104A

2A2

2A 79A

9B11

15

1

16A

RAG

LAN

DANSIE WALKCHARLES

MU

SGR

AVE

HERRON WALK

CU

RR

AG

HB

EPA

RK

CurraghbeenaPoint

LITTSIRICOV


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application to modify the consent involves changes to the approved boatshed and the adjacent timber decking. A detailed description is contained in Part 3.0 of this report. The proposal is supported by the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee and the proposed slipway has been granted consent by NSW Maritime. Approval of the modification application is recommended.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the eastern side of Raglan Street, near Curraghbeena Point. It is trapezoidal in shape with a frontage of 15.24 metres to Raglan Street. It has a maximum fall of over 30 metres from the Raglan Street frontage of the property to the harbour and includes a cliff approximately half way down the site. Substantial alterations and additions to the existing 3 storey dwelling house are currently under way pursuant to consent granted under DA 8.2003.147.1 which relates to the dwelling, swimming pool and boatshed, DA 8.2003.365.1 which relates to the inclinator, and DA 8.2004.400.1 and 2 which relates to further alterations and additions to the dwelling and landscaping works. Immediately surrounding development consists of ‘The Castle’ at No. 3 Raglan Street and a pair of semi-detached dwellings at Nos 7 and 9 Raglan Street. A multiple dwelling development is located at No. 15 Raglan Street. Dwelling houses and multiple dwellings make up the remainder of development in the vicinity. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard Yes * Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line Yes Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes ** Wetlands No

* The modification application does not give rise to bushfire issues. ** The rock faces and retaining walls are situated at the front boundary of the site, which will not be altered as part of this modification application. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 9 September 2003 Council approved DA 8.2003.147.1 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including the provision of a swimming pool, external stairways and a boatshed. Condition 1.2 of the consent stipulated as follows:


"1.2 The boatshed and the external stairs at the rear of the property are deleted in accordance with the letter to Council dated 25 July 2003. These aspects must be deleted from the plans submitted for Construction Certificate approval."

On16 August 2004 modification application No 8.2003.147.3 was approved by Council. This included increasing the pool size, extending landscaping works and reintroduced and repositioned the boatshed. In issuing consent for the boatshed Council erroneously did not remove condition 1.2 above. The following application under 8.2003.147.4 deleted condition 1.2 from the previous consent. On 18 April 2007, modification application 8.2003.147.6 was lodged with Council for works as detailed in Section 3 of the report. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Relocation of slipway to align with the boatshed; • Extension of the boatshed towards the west into the cliff, change of roof material to

copper, and new skylight above the entry; • Realignment of the timber deck and reconstruction of the seawall to sit within the property

line; and • Removal of existing structures below the mean high water mark. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 • Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE


Foreshore Building Line (FBL) Applies Works within FBL Yes



Setbacks terrace

On merit

Nil (existing)

Yes



unchanged Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Sydney Regional Environmental Plan - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 The proposed works will not have an adverse impact on the existing natural biodiversity in the surrounding environment. The development will not obstruct any existing public access along the foreshore. The proposed modifications maintain the visual qualities to and from the harbour and therefore are acceptable within the provisions of the SREP. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(b). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) consultation has occurred with NSW Maritime and their comments are addressed at

section 6.0 of this report; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) no submissions were received. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed works are visible from the foreshore, but will not create any detrimental impact on the natural, visual, environmental and heritage qualities of Mosman. Foreshore Building Line Works proposed in this modification will not have any detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the foreshore and the perceived bulk and scale of the boatshed is not altered. The proposal maintains the overall appearance of the boatshed and site features. The objectives of Clause 28 of MLEP are satisfied by the proposal. Heritage The site is a heritage item of local significance. The immediate adjoining properties and Raglan Street are heritage items. Council’s Heritage Advisor commented as follows:


“I am of the opinion that the proposed change will have no impact on the heritage item and is of minimal visual impact on the waterways when viewed from Bradleys Head or from Sydney Harbour. For these reasons I recommend approval of the application.” The proposed alignment of the deck, boatshed extension and the proposed slipway are satisfactory. They will not affect the heritage significance of the property or the adjoining heritage items. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposed modifications do not result in a development of inappropriate scale. The proposed realignment of the timber decking and seawall to be contained within the subject property boundary and is acceptable. Views The proposed works will not impact on views. Landscaping The existing landscaped area provision will be unaffected by the modification. Streetscape and Building Design The proposal is limited to the rear of the property and will not be visible from Raglan Street. The proposed modifications are acceptable in terms of the building design. Privacy The proposal does not raise any issues relating to privacy. Overshadowing The proposal does not result in any additional shadow impacts. Bushfire The modifications do not give rise to any additional bushfire risk on the site. Bushfire conditions imposed in the original consent still apply. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposed modifications are in keeping with the local context in terms of the finished design, and are not excessive in terms of scale and proportion of the host building. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required for the modification works to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan.


5.3.3 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The proposed works will not impact on any existing vegetation on the site. Public views and vistas to and from the waterway will not be obstructed to any unreasonable degree. The proposal is in keeping with the existing building design. The residential setting as seen from the harbour will not be detrimentally altered by the proposal and is satisfactory. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modifications do not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection and made the following comments: “I am of the opinion that the proposed change will have no impact on the heritage item and is of minimal visual impact on the waterways when viewed from Bradleys Head or from Sydney Harbour. For these reasons I recommend approval of the application.” The Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee made the following comments: “1. This matter was considered by the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and

Development Advisory Committee on 18 May 2007. 2. The Committee notes that the S96 Application involves changes to the approved

boatshed and timber decking. 3. The Committee notes the advice of NSW Maritime that: a) development consent has been granted to the proposed slipway under Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 9Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005; and b) in the event of consent being granted by Council, a condition should ensure that no works occur on NSW Maritime’s land as part of the approve modifications. 4. The Committee has no objections to the proposed modifications subject to

clarification that the proposed re-constructed seawall has been previously approved. If this is not the case, the Committee recommends that any reconstructed seawall should re-use the existing stone as much as practicable and not be rendered to maintain the scenic amenity of the existing water’s edge.”

The NSW Maritime Authority raised no objection subject to General Terms of Approval which have been incorporated into recommended conditions of consent. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 1 and 15 May 2007. No submissions were received.


8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modification application to extend the boatshed, realign the deck and seawall and reposition the slipway is assessed as acceptable. The works will not compromise the natural or visual qualities of the Harbour. Approval is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Liddy & Associates. The owners are Anthony R and Wendy M Tisch. The estimated value of works as per the original DA is $1,200,000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2003.147.6 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Amending condition No. 1.1 to read as follows: 1.1 This approval relates to the following plan numbers (except where amended by the

following conditions):

Plan Nos. Date of Plan Prepared by A01 to A07 (issue B) inclusive

November 2002 (all plot dated 7 April 2003)

Paul Davies Pty Ltd

0318 – 06A [air conditioner, reduced gym, cellar]

May 2003 MacCormick + Simonian Architects

0318 - 07A [Works on Council Land]

May 2003 (plot dated 18 June 2003)

MacCormick +Simonian architects

2003/736/DA1(issue A) Sheet 1/1 (Landscape Plan)

23 April 2003 Paul Scrivener Landscape Architect

MRAG5-A,B (Stormwater Plans)

April 2003 WaterPlan Pty Ltd

Except where modified on Landscape Plan No. 2004/844/DA1 (Issue C) and as amended on boatshed plans shown in Drawing No. 2004/850/A3 dated 3 May 2004, and as shown coloured on Drawings Nos. 2004/850/DA1 Issue G dated 23 September 2004 and DA1 Issue G dated 23 April 2003. The inclinator is not included in this approval.

A3. Addition of the following conditions:


2.8 Pursuant to Section 94A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, a monetary contribution must be paid to Council for the purpose of purchasing and embellishing public open space if the value of amended works as approved under DA 8.2003.147.6 exceeds $100,000.00.



This condition is imposed under Mosman Municipal Council's Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 and is required to be paid prior to an amending Construction Certificate being issued.. The Plan may be inspected at Council's offices within the Civic Centre, Mosman Square, Mosman.

2.9 The reconstructed seawall shall re-use the existing stone as much as practicable and not be rendered to maintain the scenic amenity of the existing water’s edge.




EP/146 10 Milner Street DA NUMBER: 8.2007.80.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

including additional living and bedroom areas, new carport and deck

REPORTING OFFICER: Julie Van Look, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 5 April 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

1D DP 3

SP

12

211

131

1514

2

DP 72026

DP 976424

1917

1

201

2DP 534644D P208888

22

3

DP

1571

DP 203119 DP

5522

74DP 81981

DP

9764

24

79470

12

28

1410

DP 1571

DP 208058

SP 1

1117

SP 46480

DP

DP 568720

228

3

DP 78913

1

DP 1107597 29

DP 901581

2

1

122

DP

9428

69D

P 98

2555

SP 3

561

DP

2298

2 1 1 1

1

4

DP 318031

DP

7235

69

DP

9179

181

DP 115329

DP 78583

DP 8

1

DP 9179511

1 123

DP 101878DP 928094SP 2443

SP 2352

82

SP

2084

0

SP 1722

251

DP 2298

DP

9185

55

1

1

20

3 27

1819

DP

1041

85

DP 1571

351

DP

2453

371

PT14

3615

DP 1571

SP 1

0247

SP 3

561

D P455962

3029

D

P10

1093

4

DP

9815

34

42 31

DP 2453

D P504566

D P522939

D

P

5511

24

1310

112

2

1114

121

16

23

D

P

2279

98

1

2 1

2 DP

1191

86

1

23 1

DP

2298

DP 417373

DP

9189

92

SP 642

P 2SP 307

732

355

DP

SP 14

SP 2849

11113

141820

15

12A 12

3

9A 9 7

9

63

9696

57

80

7476

7882

5355

55A

1612

10

133

11

98

61

8688

92A

9294

156158

160

16

129

3

131

7

18

51

14

141616A 16

1923 21

23

12 10

51

17

152

30 28 26 24 22

162

154127

55B

84

59

6

720

24 22

25

18

8

1513 11 9

10 8 6 4 2

35 35 33 3127

50

20

5254

25

0

STST

T

ST

QUE

WAN

T

MIL

NER

LN

ST

MILNER


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal consists of alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising additions to the northern and western elevations, a minor addition to an existing studio and the erection of a carport within the front setback. The proposal is compliant with Council’s numeric controls with the exception of part of the development which exceeds the wall and building height. A SEPP1 objection has been submitted for each of these non compliances. The site has an existing double garage therefore the proposed carport cannot be supported and the applicant has agreed to delete it from the proposal by condition. The proposal has insufficient landscaped area, however, the level of landscaping is assessed as satisfactory given the constraints of the site. An objection was received relating to view loss from the living room of the dwelling opposite the site (7 Milner St). The views are not extensive and the impact of the proposal on views does not warrant refusal of the application. The proposal is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the southern side of Milner Street on the corner of Milner Lane. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 16.08m to Milner Street and 43.04m to Milner Lane. The site falls 6m to the south at an average gradient of 14%. The site presently contains a two storey brick and tile single dwelling. There is an in-ground pool and cabana which are accessed from the house. Beneath the cabana is a double garage which is accessed from Milner Lane and at the rear of the garage there is a studio/rumpus which is accessed via external stairs adjacent to the eastern boundary. Surrounding development consists of single and multi unit dwellings. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes* Wetlands No

*Council retaining walls within road boundaries. The proposal will not have an impact on the retaining wall. 2.0 BACKGROUND The garage/studio structure was erected in approximately 1990.


3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • alterations and additions to the ground and first floor to the north-west and west; • alterations to the existing roof; • addition of a new ground floor balcony with adjustable pergolas; • addition of a new single carport; • minor addition to the studio; • removing doors from the cabana and lowering the roof pitch; and • minor changes to the landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards 2004 • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 700m2 692m2 N/A

Building Height 8.5m 9.1m (+7%) No (SEPP1)

Wall Height 7.2m 7.8m (+8%) No (SEPP1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area

Existing 237m2 N/A

Proposed 108m2 N/A

Total 345m2 N/A


Landscaped Area


Proposed 298m2 222m2 (-26%) No



Setbacks

Ground floor - west

First floor - west

Ground floor - east

First floor - east

Swimming Pool – west

0.9m

1.5m

0.9m

1.5m

2m

1.7m

1.7m

0.9m (existing)

2.3m (existing)

1.5m (existing)

Yes

Yes

N/A

N/A

N/A

Parking


On merit

3m

3 spaces

3m

No

Yes



> 2 hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – Pass

Thermal - Pass

Energy – Pass

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards A SEPP 1 objection has been included with respect to the MLEP Clause 13 Height Limits in Residential Zones. See Height below. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposal seeks additions to the northern and western sides of the existing dwelling. A portion of the proposed addition does not comply with the numerical controls of Clause 13 in relation to wall and building height and a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged. The objectives of Clause 13 and the applicant’s response are as follows:


a. to protect public and private views, and

b. to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour

and surrounding foreshores, and c. to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with

existing buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form, and d. to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new

development in existing residential areas. It is submitted that this application complies with these numerical limits, other than for a relatively small portion of the south western corner. Where for a distance of some 2.5m, the wall height is 7.8m, 0.6m above the maximum wall height and a short length of the roof ridge exceeds the maximum overall height of 8.5m. It is submitted that the numerical non-compliance with the building height limits of the proposed reconfigured roof in the south western corner be allowed, because of the circumstances of the existing site, the nature of the proposal and the submission that there is no adverse impact upon the existing properties, environment or streetscape. It is submitted that the proposal meets the control objectives and that varying the standard should be allowed. It is submitted that, taking into account the existing characteristics of the site, compliance with the standards would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances and that Council should approve these relatively minor area of numerical non-compliance with the Code’s numerical standards, taking into account the submitted compliance with the Objectives of the LEP.

The northern (front) elevation of the existing dwelling is dominated by a large gable which is proposed to be demolished and replaced by three smaller gables which comply with Council’s maximum building height control and will reduce the appearance of bulk to this elevation. The proposed area of non compliance will not have any material impacts on the bulk of the building or the streetscape. Council has received a submission regarding view loss which is discussed under Section 7. The proposed non-compliance would not increase the proposal’s impact on view loss which relates to the width of the dwelling rather than the height. The SEPP1 objection is supported. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with the numerical controls of Clause 14. Landscaped Area The proposed landscaped area is deficient by 76m2, however, the deletion of the proposed carport (discussed below) will reduce the deficiency by 18m2. The rear yard slopes steeply and steps and stairs are required to access the studio from the house. There is also a large area of paving surrounding the existing pool and cabana. There is little potential to increase the landscaped area in the rear yard and it is proposed to remain as it is. The front yard is to have its paving and path redesigned such that, with the deletion of the carport, it has a minor increase in landscaped area. Considering the constraints of the site, the landscaped area is assessed as satisfactory.


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is not readily visible from the harbour. The proposed additions will complement the existing dwelling in scale and materials and the proposal will not have a material impact on the area as viewed from the harbour. Excavation Excavation is limited to that required for footings and will not have a material environmental impact. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The street is a heritage item however the proposal will not have an impact upon it. 5.3.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.2 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposal satisfies the numerical requirements of MLEP Clause 14 and MRDCP Clause 4.2. The scale of the development is in keeping with the surrounding area and is satisfactory. Views From its ground floor living room, No 7 Milner Street has water glimpses which are viewed through the setback between Nos. 10 and 12 Milner Street (which includes Milner Lane). The views are heavily filtered by street trees on both sides of Milner Street. The addition to the western side of No. 10 Milner Street will have an impact on these views. This impact relates to the width of the addition rather than its height, therefore, lowering the roof would not have an impact on the view loss. The proposal complies with Council’s required setbacks to the boundary with Milner Lane and the presence of the laneway itself adds to the spatial separation between Nos. 10 and 12 Milner Street. The views are not extensive and it would be unreasonable to refuse the application based on the view loss. Landscaping As discussed, the rear yard is to remain substantially as it is. In the front yard, it is proposed to retain the mature jacaranda and gum trees whilst removing the paved area. This will give the appearance of a dominance of landscaping over built form and is supported. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed alterations are in keeping with the style of the existing dwelling and will complement the existing streetscape.


Privacy The additional windows to the dwelling will face Milner Street, Milner Lane and the rear yard and therefore will not have any material impact on privacy. The minor addition to the studio and the proposed balcony will not have any material privacy impacts on privacy as they are ground floor additions. Overshadowing There will be no material increase in overshadowing and the proposal complies with Clause 5.8 P3. Carport The proposal includes a new single carport to be built forward of the building line. The site has an existing double garage which is accessed from Milner Lane. The proposed carport cannot be supported as car accommodation is already available in Council’s preferred location behind the building line. The applicant has agreed to delete the carport by way of condition. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character objectives of the townscape. 5.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 16 April 2007 and 2 May 2007. 3 submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 6 Milner Street; • 7 Milner Street; and • 8 Milner Street.


Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

The proposed carport and driveway will reduce on street parking and the kerb garden; Comment: The applicant has agreed to delete the proposed carport from the application.

The house is too bulky; Comment: The house complies with Council’s floorspace ratio controls and setback controls and the facades are suitably modulated to reduce the appearance of bulk.

There is not enough landscaped area; Comment: The proposal does not comply with the landscaped area requirement, however, the proposal, with the deletion of the carport, results in a slight increase in landscaped area.

The additions to the dwelling will result in view loss to No. 7 Milner Street; Comment: The views from No. 7 Milner Street are not extensive and are heavily filtered by street trees and other plantings. The proposal exceeds Council’s required setbacks to the boundary with Milner Lane and the presence of the laneway itself adds to the spatial separation between Nos. 10 and 12 Milner Street. It would be unreasonable to refuse the application based the view loss. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against the relevant statutory and policy planning controls. It complies with these controls with the exception of the shortfall in landscaped area and MLEP Clause 13 for which a SEPP1 objection has been submitted. The deletion of the carport achieves an acceptable streetscape outcome. The affected views from 7 Milner Road are not extensive and do not warrant refusal of the application. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Liddy & Associates. The owner is Patricia Daley. The estimated value of works is $486,000.00. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to the maximum height limit and wall height within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

site, and the context of surrounding development;


(c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts on overshadowing or the streetscape;

(d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response; and B. That Development Application No. 8.2007.80.1 be approved subject to the following

conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



15 1/07 David Liddy & Associates






15246 11 August 2005 Bee & Lethbridge Pty Ltd



December 2006 David Liddy & Associates

2. The proposed carport is to be deleted and replaced with soft landscaping. Details are

to be included in the Construction Certificate application.












Retaining Walls


Sydney Water





Utility Services




Long Service Levy


Security Deposit













(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the



PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.





Home Building Act






















Site Work Hours













Council Property



Drainage




Tree Preservation


Leighton Green Cypress

30. Leightons Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, shall not be planted on the site for the life of the development. Further information on Leightons Green Cypress may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees”. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

BASIX Certificate


Toilet Facilities









Approved Plans

























PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES


(i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of Determination.


Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.
















EP/147 14 Amaroo Crescent DA NUMBER: 8.2006.420.1 PROPOSAL: Construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool REPORTING OFFICER: Sarah Winnacott, Executive Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 9 November 2006 (Downtime 30 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

97

11

5 3

64

2022

2420

A

1214

2 9

5

11

3

13151

42

1

68

2C2A 1

3

57

13

22

18

10 20 27

16

1614

2

15

18

711 16

1012

14

96

812

29

18

1

18A

20 2216

A

7

125

1

11

25

14

12 10

15

8

11 9

24

145

1

8

1012

579

86

10

57

29

10

17

16

2018

7

6

12

15

1517

3

119

75

3

3

9

11

2

10

6

2A4

35

14

23 21

28

18

5

26A26 2422

AVE

CR

ES

GOOSEBERRY LANE (M41)AV

E

AVEDAYRELLAMAROO

CO

RO

NAT

ION

AMAROO

CRES

RD

CORONATION

AVE

WINDWARD

ENAV

E

PRETORIA

CO

BBIT

TEE

AD

COBBITTEE L

N

LN

WOLSELEY

AHIB

AH

RD

AVECORONATION


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal involves the construction of a dwelling and swimming pool on an undersized allotment, the creation of which was approved by Council under Development Application 8.2001.475.1. The assessment has found that the proposed development has an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of surrounding development and the constraints of the site and will have an acceptable impact on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views. The Development Application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the southern side of Amaroo Crescent, between Windward Avenue and Kahibah Road. The site is roughly rectangular in shape with a frontage of 17.09m to Amaroo Crescent. The site falls 10.5m to the north at an average gradient of 35%. A easement to drain water runs the length of the western side boundary. The site is presently vacant. Surrounding development consists of single residential developments. Amaroo Crescent in front of the site is unformed and has been zoned 7(a) Environmental Protection (Bushland). Bushland currently exists on part of this land. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip Yes Bushfire hazard Yes Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The development application was lodged on 9 November 2006 and notified to residents in accordance with the Notifications Development Control Plan between 7 December 2006 and 22 December 2006. On 8 June 2007 the applicant submitted amended plans to address the concerns raised by neighbours and Council. Development Application 8.2001.475.1 for the subdivision of 3 Windward Avenue was approved by Council on 10 December 2002 following a recommendation by the staff for refusal. This approval allowed for the creation of a 500 square metre allotment where the maximum permissible for lots zoned 2(a1) is 700 square metres. The driveway required as part of the subdivision within the road reserve has been constructed. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of:


• Site works; • Construction of a new dwelling comprising the following:

Garage floor level: double garage, car turning area, hallway, stair and lift. Lower ground floor: bedroom, bathroom, family room, lift, stair, terrace and

swimming pool. Upper ground floor: kitchen, dining room, lounge room, stair, laundry, lift and

powder room. First floor: 3 bedrooms, WIR, 2 bathrooms, lift, stair and balcony.

• Construction of a swimming pool and landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards • Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards 2004 • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Transport Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area - 500sqm 700m2 500 m2 No (SEPP1)

Building Height 8.5m 8.5m Yes

Wall Height 7.2m 8.5m No (SEPP1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No (SEPP1)

Gross Floor Area 250 m2 362m2 (inc. car turning area)

254m2 (exc. car turning area)

N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5 : 1 0.72:1 (+22%) (inc. car turning area) 0.58:1 (+8%)(exc. car turning area)

No (SEPP1)

No


LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Landscaped Area 226m2 (when GFA exc. garage/car turning area)

191m2 No


Setbacks

Garage - east

- west

Lower Ground floor - east

- west

First floor - east

- west

Upper Ground Floor - east

- west

Swimming Pool - east

2m

2m

1.5m - 3m

1.5m – 3m

1.5m - 3m

1.5m – 3m

1.5m – 3m

1.5m – 3m

2m

3.0 – 3.4m

1.6m – 6.25m

5.1m

1.6m – 4.9m

5.4m

1.5m

5.4m

1.5m

2m

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Parking


On merit

6.0m

2 spaces

5.7m

Yes

Yes

Fencing Height 1.2m 2.6m No



> 2 hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS • State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards and

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards 2004 The applicant has lodged objections under the provisions of SEPP 1 relating to minimum lot size clause 12(2), wall height clause 13(2), number of storeys clause 13(2) and floor space ratio clause 14 (2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. The SEPP 1 objections provide justification as to why the development standards are unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. Each of the SEPP 1 objections are discussed separately below: Minimum Lot Size The objectives of the minimum lot size requirement specified in Clause 12(1) are: i. to retain the pattern of subdivision in residential areas while allowing infill

development of smaller lots in some localities, and ii. to ensure lots have a minimum size which would be sufficient to provide useable area

for building and landscaping, and iii. to require larger lots along the foreshore or where the topography of the other natural

features of a site limit its subdivision potential, and


iv. to provide small lot subdivision in some zones as an alternative to redevelopment for the purposes of multiple dwellings to ensure the retention of the existing dwelling stock and the amenity of the area.

The proposed development does not involve subdivision or a boundary adjustment, rather the construction of a new dwelling and swimming pool on an already approved undersized allotment. Despite the undersized allotment, the proposed development satisfactorily achieves the objectives of the minimum lot size requirement. The dwelling has been designed to provide adequate internal and external living areas that are well integrated and orientated. The applicant has demonstrated that landscaping will be provided in accordance with the minimum landscaping requirements. The proposed development will have an acceptable impact on adjoining properties. For the above reasons, and given that the proposed non-compliance with the development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning and will not affect the public benefit, the SEPP 1 objection in relation to minimum lot size is supported. Wall Height and Number of Storeys The objectives of the height limits in residential zones requirement specified in Clause 13(1) are: (a) to protect public and private views, and (b) to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and

surrounding foreshores, and (c) to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing

buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form; and to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in existing residential areas.

The applicant has provided the following reasons for the proposed non-compliance: • The proposed development will not unreasonably impact on any existing or public views.

The overall height of the development will be lower than the upper floor levels of the dwellings located behind the subject site;

• The dwelling has been designed to limit the amount of excavation with the lower floor level being close to or lower than the existing ground level;

• The building has as been located on the site having regard to the views of 15 Kahibah Avenue (the adjoining property to the west);

• The proposed variations result from the slope of the land, with the non-compliances being limited to the part of the development located on the lower portion of the site;

• A complying situation could be achieved by setting back the upper level further towards the rear of the site. This would however impact on the views obtained from surrounding properties. Compliance could also be achieved by dropping the building however, this is not proposed to minimise the amount of excavation. The deletion of a storey from the development would unreasonably restrict development on the site;

• The visibility of the development from the harbour and surrounding foreshore will be limited given the sites setback from the harbour and concealment by existing bushland;

• The dwelling will not result in a dominant or overpowering visual impact. The building will present a well-designed contemporary architectural form harmonious in bulk, scale and height to that of surrounding buildings. Features such as balconies, indent changes in roof height, setbacks, openings and external colours and materials will add articulation and visual interest. The proposed on-site landscaping will supplement the surrounding vegetation network;

• The roof form will add to the diversity of roof forms in the street and will match the contemporary style of the proposed dwelling;


• The height of the proposed dwelling will represent an average between the existing dwellings at 15 Kahibah Road and 12 Amaroo Crescent and will continue the general stepping of buildings from west to east, respecting the fall of the land;

• The proposed bulk and scale will not will not contribute to any undue overshadowing, major view loss or loss of visual privacy; and

• The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the area. Comment: The proposed development has been designed to achieve a compromise between limiting the impacts of the development on adjoining properties and minimising the extent of excavation. The non-compliances with the wall height and number of storeys are primarily related to the slope of the land which has been calculated at 35%. An alternative compliant design may have the potential to affect the views of the neighbours. The proposed development will have an acceptable visual impact in the context of surrounding development and will be well screened by landscaping both on-site and within the road reserve. The dwelling has been designed with a high level of articulation. For the above reasons, and given that the proposed non-compliance with the development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning and will not affect the public benefit, the SEPP 1 objection in relation to wall height and number of storeys should be supported.

Floorspace Ratio The objectives of the floorspace ratio in residential zones requirement specified in Clause 14(1) are: (a) to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics

of the locality, and (b) to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of

landscaping and containing urban run-off, and (c) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development. The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed non-compliance: • The proposed dwelling will not present an overbearing visual impact, rather it will provide

a scale/built form that will appropriately integrate into the streetscape. • The dwelling has been designed to maintain a stepping of built forms along Amaroo

Crescent, respecting the fall of the land and the height of dwellings on neighbouring properties. The front and east side elevation have been designed to consist of distance forms/elements that step down in scale from west to east and to the northeast to correspond more sympathetically with the height of buildings on neighbouring properties and the slope of the land to the northeast.

• The maximum RL of the proposed dwelling at 38 is lower than the dwelling on the neighbouring property to the west 15 Kahibah Road. The dwelling at 15 Kahibah Road has a maximum RL of 40.45 to the upper eaves and a roof ridge of RL42.48. The proposed dwelling is higher than the dwelling at 12 Amaroo Crescent which has a maximum RL of 32.21.

• The proposed dwelling is sensitive to the ‘amphitheatre’ created by the slope and buildings in the surrounding Balmoral locality. It will maintain a scale that will not dominate buildings located to the south, on higher land levels and respect the cascading of buildings to the foreshore.

• The proposed dwelling has been setback from each boundary in a manner consistent with surrounding development.

• The proposed development provides a balanced solution between limiting excavation, reducing amenity impacts as well as providing adequate on-site landscaping and ample


on-site filtration to control runoff. Some excavation is however unavoidable given the fall of land from the rear to the front and the need to develop the site, provide on-site car parking, facilitate an appropriate scale and height for compatibility within the streetscape, to minimise overshadowing and maximise visual privacy and to minimise any obstruction of significant views.

• The non-complying section of floor space will not contribute to the bulk and scale of the development as it is located below existing ground level.

Comment: The non-compliance of the proposed development with the floorspace ratio development standard relates to the small size of the allotment. The floor area of the dwelling while large is not excessive when considered in the context of other development in the locality. The extent of excavation proposed is acceptable and will allow for the retention of natural ground levels for the purpose of landscaping and containing urban run-off. The bulk and scale of the development is not inconsistent with surrounding development, especially when compared with the dwelling at 15 Kahibah Road. The dwellings in this section of Amaroo Crescent will step down from west to east consistent with the topography of the area. The dwelling has been designed to minimise impacts on adjoining properties and existing and proposed landscaping will ensure the built form is appropriately screened from Amaroo Crescent. The proposed development provides an acceptable design solution as it is well articulated and incorporates a roof form with minimal bulk. For the above reasons, and given that the proposed non-compliance with the development standard will not raise any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning and will not affect the public benefit, the SEPP 1 objection in relation to floor space ratio should be supported. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 – Bushland in Urban Areas The proposed development does not involve the removal of any significant trees and subject to the implementation and proper maintenance of sediment controls and protection for the vegetation in the road reserve during construction, any impact on the adjoining bushland should be satisfactory. Conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure the above measures are implemented. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets the water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The works are defined as dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. Amendment 15 to the MLEP 1998 is applicable to the subject site which was previously known as 3 Windward Avenue. The amendment permitted development for the purpose of vehicular access to the rear of 3 Windward Avenue. The driveway that was required as part of the subdivision has been constructed. No new driveway works are proposed within the road reserve.


The development satisfies the zone objectives. Height The proposed development complies with the maximum building height requirement of 8.5 metres. The proposed development does not however comply with the maximum wall height of 7.2 metres or the maximum two storey requirement. Refer to section 5.2.1 of this report for further discussion of the proposed variation to the wall height and number of storeys LEP requirement. Floorspace Ratio The proposed development does not comply with the floorspace ratio requirement of 0.5:1. Refer to section 5.2.1 of this report for further discussion of the proposed variation to the floorspace ratio LEP requirement. In the compliance table in section 5.1 of this report, two calculations of floorspace ratio have been provided. One of the calculations includes the car turning area located on the garage level and the other does not. When the car turning area is included, the proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.72:1, when it is excluded the floor space ratio has been calculated at 0.58:1 (the applicant has calculated the floorspace ratio at 0.564:1). In accordance with the definition of gross floor area in the LEP the floorspace ratio is 0.72:1. At the suggestion of Council to achieve an improved streetscape outcome, the applicant amended the design to enclose the car turning area, such that it would be included as gross floor area. Further merits in permitted the additional gross floor area are: • This component of the development does not add to the visual bulk of the development

and does not affect the visual appearance when viewed from the street. • The design allows for landscaping within the front building line that would not otherwise

exist if the car turning area was not enclosed. • Safety, given the existing driveway arrangement in the unformed section of Amaroo

Crescent it is necessary that vehicles exit the site in a forward direction to avoid conflict with the other users of the driveway.

Landscaped Area The proposed development does not comply with the minimum landscape area requirement derived from MLEP of 226.2 square metres. As already discussed, the car turning area is included in the gross floor area calculation as a result of amendments at the suggestion of Council to achieve an improved streetscape outcome. When the car turning area is excluded from the gross floor area calculation the proposed development complies with the minimum landscape area (181 square metres). The proposed development yields 191 square metres of landscape area. When the landscaping proposed above the basement garage is included as landscaped area, the calculation increases to 220 square metres. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposed development, including the amended landscape plan and has found it to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring that the existing Frangipani tree in the south-eastern corner of the site be protected during construction. The landscape plan identifies 2 further canopy tree plantings (Angophora costata) with one located in the front and the other in the rear set back. Adequate landscaping is proposed within the front, rear and side set back to help soften the built form when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties. The development achieves a general dominance of landscape over buildings.


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 indicates that Council must not consent to the erection of a building on land in the foreshore scenic protection area unless an assessment has been made having regard to the objectives of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed development will not be visually dominant when viewed from the waterway as a consequence of the extensive vegetation that exists to the north of the subject site. The proposed development is acceptable in achieving the objectives of the REP and is supported in this regard. Excavation Clause 31 of MLEP 1998 requires that soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with land form modification be controlled. Whilst substantial excavation is proposed as part of this development, the applicant has advised that consideration has been given to achieving a balance between minimising the extent of excavation and reducing the impact of the development on adjoining properties including views. Council’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and has provided appropriate conditions to ensure the excavation will have an acceptable impact. These conditions include the requirement that the Construction Certificate application plans be endorsed or countersigned by a qualified practicing Geotechnical Engineer and that appropriate sedimentation controls be implemented. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale As already discussed in this report the proposed development does not comply with the maximum wall height and number of storeys and floorspace ratio requirements of Mosman Residential Development Control Plan. Refer to discussion section 5.2.1 in this report for further detail. The proposed development has been appropriately set back from the front and rear boundaries having regard to the established pattern of development in the vicinity of the site. As identified in the MRDCP compliance table the proposed development does not achieve full compliance with the side set back requirement. The proposed development has been set back in excess of the minimum requirement from the eastern side boundary to provide a level of separation with the adjoining property 12 Amaroo Crescent. The proposed development does not comply with the side set back requirement to the western side boundary, with the majority of the development above ground level being set back 1.5 metres from this boundary. In the context of surrounding development and the minimal impact of the proposed development on the adjoining property to the west, the proposed set back will allow a sufficient area for landscaping to help soften the visual impact of the development when viewed from the west.


The MRDCP requires that where a property adjoins bushland a minimum setback of 5.0 metres applies. Council’s Bushland Officer has been consulted regarding the relationship between the proposed development and the bushland to the north of the site. Council’s Bushland Officer has advised that subject to conditions requiring that there be no storage of material on the road reserve and that this area be protected for the duration of works, the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on the bushland. The proposed development does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation. The proposed development has been designed to achieve a compromise between minimising excavation and allowing for view sharing. An acceptable level of overshadowing will be achieved. Views The proposed development will not affect any public views or vistas. The dwelling has been designed to allow for view sharing with adjoining properties. The dwelling is in part excavated into the site and the built form has been distributed across the site so as to not impact on the neighbours views. The proposed development complies with the view sharing objectives of the MRDCP. Landscaping Refer to discussion under section 5.2.4 of this report for further detail. The proposed development does not comply with the minimum landscape area requirement of the MRDCP. The landscaped areas are adequately distributed between the front, rear and side setbacks. This landscaping will help to screen the built form and soften the visual impact of the development. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposed development, including the amended landscape plan and has found it to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring that the existing Frangipani tree in the south-eastern corner of the site be protected during construction. The landscape plan identifies 2 further canopy tree plantings (Angophora costata) with one located in the front and the other in the rear setback. Streetscape and Building Design With the exception of the western façade, the proposed development complies with the requirement that new development should incorporate articulated facades to avoid a bulky appearance. The design incorporates modulation and setbacks in building walls, fenestration and verandahs as is encourage by the MRDCP. The proposed development will have an acceptable visual appearance when viewed from neighbouring properties and the road reserve. A schedule of finishes was submitted with the development application. The schedule identifies colours and finishes that will ensure the development is sympathetic to the neighbourhood character and will not be visually dominant. The proposed development incorporates a wall/front fence on the northern boundary of the site. Given the topography of the site this fence has a variable height above ground level, with a maximum proposed height of approximately 2.6 metres (RL28.0). The applicant seeks to justify the variation to the maximum 1.2 metre height requirement for the following reasons:

It will not present an overly dominant form;


The excess height is a result of the land and drop from the front boundary to the driveway in the road reserve;

It will appropriately relate to the height of the proposed dwelling and scale of elements on its front façade;

The fence will avoid the presentation of a long blank wall by consisting of a varied form; Landscaping will be provided in front of and behind the fence to minimise the visual

impact; and The fence will be consistent with the fence on the neighbouring property 12 Amaroo

Avenue. To reduce the non-compliance of the fence with the height requirement it is recommended that the section of fence to the west of the garage be set back from the northern boundary 1.0 metre. This setback will reduce the visual dominance of the fence by reducing the height and allowing an area of landscaping in front of the fence within the boundaries of the property. The recommended condition of consent requiring the amendment also requires that the landscaping achieves a minimum height at maturity of 1.0 metre. This will better fit with the northern adjoining fence at No. 15 Kahibah Road. Privacy Throughout the assessment of the development application amendments have been made to the design to address the concerns of the neighbours raised in relation to visual privacy. A 1.6 metre high privacy screen has been added to the eastern side of the main private open space area accessed from the living areas. Additionally, the height of the swimming pool has been reduced to RL 30.6. These measures combined with the landscaping proposed will ensure that adequate visual privacy is maintained with 12 Amaroo Crescent. In relation to acoustic privacy, the applicant has advised that mechanical plant including the air conditioning unit and pool equipment will comply with the noise emission requirement of the MRDCP. A recommended condition of consent seeks to ensure compliance with the acoustic requirement. These amendments and the recommended condition of consent result in the proposed development having an acceptable level of compliance with the objectives and planning guidelines of the privacy and security requirements of the MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposed development is acceptable in meeting the objectives and planning guidelines outlined in Clause 5.8 Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing of the MRDCP. The site is orientated such that the shadow cast by the proposed development will not affect the ability of the neighbouring properties to receive the two hour minimum requirement as outlined in the MRDCP. The design of the proposed development will allow for considerably greater than the minimum two hours to habitable rooms and private open space areas for both the subject site and neighbouring properties. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character objectives for the Balmoral townscape with the exception of the requirement that parking be located behind the front of the building and that fences be open form. The proposed car parking arrangement will have an acceptable visual impact when viewed from the road/road reserve. The landscaping that is proposed, including that above the basement level will help to soften the visual impact of the development. The fence while not open in design will not obscure any views or vistas, this being a consequence of the site topography.


5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The TDCP does not provide a minimum or maximum parking requirement for dwelling houses. The proposed development incorporates a double garage which is an acceptable provision of on-site car parking given the size of the proposed development. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the TDCP. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. The recommendation includes a condition of consent requiring that the contribution be paid prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to a condition relating to tree protection for the Frangipani tree at the rear of the property. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. The NSW Rural Fire Service raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Bushland Officer was consulted regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on the bushland on the road reserve. He has recommended that a condition of consent be included requiring that all building materials are to be stored within the property boundaries and that tree protection measures be installed to ensure the existing bushland is not disturbed by the proposed works. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 7 December 2006 and 22 December 2006. The amended plans were not notified to adjoining property owners on the basis that the amendments were limited to the following: 1. Pool deck has been lowered by 680mm from RL.31.43 to RL30.75. 2. Pool water level has been lowered by 700mm from RL.31.30 to RL. 30.60 3. Pool has been reduced in size from 10.0 x 3.5 metres to 9.3 x 3.3 metres 4. Pool’s proposed eastern wet edge has been removed. 5. The landscaped setback to the east of the pool has been increased to start at

minimum of 2.0 metres. 6. The landscaped setback to the east of the entry access stair has been increased by

350mm on average. 7. Landscaped concrete deck has been extended up to the northern boundary over the

whole of the car access area in order to reduce the four level appearance of the proposed house volume.


8. Stone clad retaining wall along the northern boundary to be extended over the garage entry.

9. Security garage door is to be located 1.4 metres from the northern boundary to allow for the entry gate to be positioned on the eastern reveal wall.

10. External tiling to Lower Ground Floor has been revised to allow for better landscaping along the front northern setback.

11. 1.6 metres privacy screen wall is to be positioned to the east of the main living area deck on the Upper Ground Level to eliminate overlooking over neighbouring property to the east.

12. New Section 4-4 added showing among the rest the 1.6 metres privacy screen wall located deck on the Upper Ground Level and the 1.8 meters high eastern boundary fence. Both the screen and the fence, in addition to the proposed extensive planting along the eastern boundary setback would ensure that the overlooking over the neighbouring property to the east would be almost non - existent.

13. Tiling to rear drying area on the First Floor Level has been deleted and replaced by soft landscaping.

14. Soft landscaped area has been increased by 9% from 182.7m2 to 199.6.m2 to 69.2% of proposed G.F.A. and 40% of total site area.

These amendments do not significantly alter the application from the proposal that was the subject of the initial notification. Submissions were received from or on behalf of six (6) properties: • 15 Amaroo Crescent; • 1 Windward Avenue (4 letters of objection received); • 9/69 The Esplanade; • 15 Kahibah Road; • 12 Amaroo Crescent (2 letters of objection received); and • 49 Clanalpine Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:

Traffic impact of the shared driveway arrangement during construction Comment: Council’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and has advised that the proposed development is acceptable. Given the low volume of traffic generated by the proposed development, it will have an acceptable impact on existing traffic using the unformed section of Amaroo Avenue. A condition of consent has been included requiring that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be provided prior to the commencement of site works which includes the requirement that access by other users of the shared driveway not be clocked in any way.

Need to upgrade the common driveway; Comment: Council’s Traffic Section has advised that any works on the shared driveway should not be linked to this application. The other concerns raised by this objector in relation to the shared use of the driveway will be able to be dealt with through the Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Protection and maintenance of the landscape zone within the road reserve; Comment: A condition of consent has been included requiring that protection measures be implemented around the vegetation located in the road reserve prior to the commencement


of works. Council’s Bushland Officer has advised that it is not appropriate to require the maintenance of the bushland in the road reserve as part of the development application.

Signage to be provided; Comment: The recommendation includes a condition of consent that the street number be affixed to the building prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Size of development too large for the lot size / overdevelopment / non-compliance with the floor space ratio control and number of storeys / dominating height;

Comment: These issues have been discussed in detail in section 5.2.1 of this report. The assessment has found that the proposed development has an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of surrounding development and the constraints of the site and will be reasonable in respect to impacts on adjoining properties.

Runoff impacts; Comment: Council’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and found it to be acceptable subject to conditions of consent. On-site detention and a rainwater re-use system will be required as part of this development. All stormwater overflow will be piped to Council’s stormwater system.

Reflection from roof; Comment: The applicant has advised the roof is proposed to be constructed of concrete slab with a gravel topping over a waterproof membrane. This finish will ensure an acceptable level of reflectivity.

Overshadowing; Comment: The assessment has found that the proposed development will have an reasonable overshadowing impact on neighbouring properties. Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for further discussion in relation to this issue.

Visual privacy; Comment: The assessment has found that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on the visual privacy of the adjoining property owners. Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for further discussion in relation to this issue.

Acoustic impacts from the swimming pool; Comment: Throughout the assessment of the development application the plans have been amended to delete the eastern wet edge of the swimming and to provide greater landscaping within the side setback area. These amendments combined with a condition dealing with the acoustic attenuation of the pool equipment will ensure that the proposed swimming pool will have an acceptable acoustic impact. Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for further discussion in relation to this issue.

Out of character; Comment: The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character objectives for the Balmoral locality as outlined in the Mosman Residential Development Control Plan. When considered in the context of surrounding development the proposed


development will have an acceptable character. The dwelling has been designed to continue the general stepping of buildings from west to east, respecting the fall of the land.

Concern over the impact of works on the structure of adjoining buildings, a dilapidation report should be prepared;

Comment: The applicant has submitted a letter from a structural engineer which recommends that the proposed excavation works will not de-stabilise adjoining building foundations. Council’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and has recommended a condition of consent requiring that a report be prepared detailing the structural condition of adjoining structures / property and their ability to withstand the proposed excavation, backfilling and construction prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Access to the dwelling is inconsistent with Amendment 15 of the LEP; Comment: Amendment 15 of the LEP is not relevant to the proposed development as it relates to development for the purpose of vehicular access within the unformed section of Amaroo Crescent zoned 7(a). The development of this vehicular access was the subject of the previous development application for 3 Windward Avenue for subdivision. The proposed development does not seek to alter the existing driveway.

Applicant should provide 3D imagery; Comment: A model and montages have been provided to Council as part of the DA documentation. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. The assessment has found that the proposed development has an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of surrounding development and the constraints of the site. The impact on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views is assessed as reasonable. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Manolev Architects. The owners are Mr M & Mrs Z Stanisich. The estimated value of works is $1,210,700. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to the minimum lot size, wall height, number or storeys and floorspace ratio within Clause 12, 13 and 14 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons:


(a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards;

(b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the site, and the context of surrounding development;

(c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts to surrounding properties or the foreshore; and

(d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the development and the design response.

B. That Development Application No. 8.2006.420.1 be approved subject to the following

conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



Job No. 060801 - DA01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07 and 08 all issue B

28 May 2007 Manolev Associates Pty Limited Architects

2006.1004DA1 Issue B 7 June 2007 TGS Landscape Architects



October 2006 Willana Associates Pty Ltd

BASIX Assessment 27 October 2006 Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd

Bushfire Report October 2006 Browning Bushfire Reports

Structural Assessment 31 October 2006 D’Ambrosio Consulting Pty Ltd

Stormwater Engineering Details

31 October 2006 WaterPlan Pty Ltd

Waste Management Plan 9 November 2006 Manolev Associates Pty Ltd








Geotechnical Endorsement

3. As the site contains a cliff or is located in an area susceptible to landslip, the Construction Certificate application plans must be endorsed or countersigned by a qualified practicing Geotechnical Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.



Dilapidation Report – Private Assets

5. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 12 Amaroo Crescent and 15 Kahibah Road which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on that property. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



7. A report shall be prepared by a practicing Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to Council or the Accredited Certifier detailing the structural condition of adjoining


structures / property and their ability to withstand the proposed excavation, backfilling and construction. The report must investigate site and soil conditions and outline any recommended measures to ensure that no damage will occur to the structures / property during or subsequent to the carrying out of works.

Retaining Walls


Sydney Water





Driveway

10. The internal driveway and parking area shall be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1-2004 and specifications in Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan". Longitudinal sections for both sides of the vehicular crossing and driveway commencing at the centre line of the road carriageway shall be provided with the Construction Certificate application demonstrating that vehicles will not scrape their undercarriage.

Drainage

11. Drainage is to be directed to the exiting pipeline as shown in DRW MAMA14-1&2 by WaterPlan dated October 2006. The volumes proposed are satisfactory. Detailed plans are to be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

Utility Services


Long Service Levy

13. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate



of 0.35% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more.

Bushfire

14. Construction shall comply with AS3959 – 1999 level 3 ‘Construction of Buildings in bushfire pone areas’.

15. Roofing shall be gutterless or have leafless guttering and valleys are to be screened to prevent the build up of flammable material.

16. Roller doors, tilt-a-doors and the like shall be sealed to prevent the entry of embers into the structure.

17. The entire property shall be managed as an ‘Inner Protection Area’ as outlined within section 4.2.2 in Planning for Bushfire Protection 2001.

18. All new fences shall be constructed from non-combustible materials.

Security Deposit

19. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5000.00 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee if Council is not the PCA) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

Acoustic

20. To ensure reasonable acoustic amenity for surrounding properties is maintained, certification from a qualified Acoustic Engineer must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application that the level of noise emanating from the premises (LA10 measured for at least 15 minutes) shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) by more than 5dB(A) when measured at all property boundaries in the absence of that noise source. Any recommendations made by the Engineer which require specialised acoustic treatment or the way in which the use is to operate to achieve compliance, shall be complied with. This condition does not apply to noise generated during demolition and construction activities.








Front Fence

22. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the plans are to be amended to

(a) show the fence/wall to the western side of the driveway having a setback of 1.0metre from the northern boundary and a maximum height of RL28.00. Landscaping that will achieve a minimum height at maturity of 1.0 metre is to be provided on the northern side of the wall within the boundaries of the site.

(b) The fence/wall to the eastern side of the driveway being located wholly within the boundaries of the site.












Home Building Act

24. Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to which


the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:



























Construction Traffic Management Plan

29. To minimise disruption to and ensure reasonable safety for surrounding public and private property during site works, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Traffic Engineer and the members of the Traffic Committee. The plan is to address matters raised in Council’s Guide For Construction Traffic Management Plans which is available in Appendix 4 of Council’s “Transport Development Control Plan”.


30. To limit the potential for damage to the following trees to be retained, the area beneath its canopy must be fenced prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works.

Species Location

Large Frangipani. South eastern corner of the site

The fencing must extend 1.5m beyond the tree’s trunk, be kept in place until the completion until the completion of building works and be marked by appropriate signage notifying site workers that the tree is to be retained.. The fencing should be a minimum of a 1.8 metres high chainlink or welded mesh fencing. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

All areas within the perimeter of the safety fencing shall be covered with woodchip mulch to a depth of 100mm (or where steep grades prevent this, the area shall be protected with suitable material) to facilitate moisture levels. Adequate soil moisture must be maintained during the course of construction works through the implementation of an irrigation program or temporary irrigation system.


31. The bushland located to the north of the site within the road reserve is to be protected and must be fenced prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.













Site Work Hours











Council Property



Rainwater Re-use System

40. To ensure proper installation of the rainwater re-use tank, all work is to be undertaken in compliance of Sydney Water’s “Guidelines for Rainwater Tanks in Residential Properties” and “Rainwater Tanks, Information For Plumbers” and the NSW Code of Practice: Plumbing and Drainage. A licensed plumber must supervise all plumbing work.

41. For safety purposes, the tank and the fittings must be labelled ‘RAINWATER, NOT SUITABLE FOR DRINKING”.

42. For health reasons, a first-flush-by-pass device must be installed allowing the first 1mm of initial runoff to bypass the tank.

43. For health reasons, in the occurrence of prolonged periods of rain any overflow from the rainwater tank should be discharged via an existing stormwater drainage system or to a Council approved device such as an on-site detention system. This pipeline must be covered with an insect proof mesh to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes.

44. Any mechanical equipment associated with the rainwater re-use tank and associated reticulation system shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point on the boundary with another property, including a public place.




Tree Preservation


BASIX Certificate


Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans


















52. All works and traffic movements must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. A copy of the Plan must be kept on site at all times and made available to the PCA or Council officers on request.

Drainage

53. No building works shall be located within the drainage easement.

Utility Services

54. To maintain the visual amenity of the area, no house service poles (A-poles) shall be erected. Where such structures would otherwise be required by Energy Australia, the service shall be relocated underground. Any street poles required as a consequence by Energy Australia must be located in a position that does not unreasonably interfere with public amenity or private scenic views.

Materials & Finishes

55. External materials and colour finishes shall be in accordance with the sample submitted to Council with the development application.

Siting, Height and View Loss

56. To ensure that siting, height and view loss objectives are achieved, all wall locations, finished floor levels and ridge levels must be in accordance with that approved under this consent.

NB: The Principal Certifying Authority may require a compliance certificate from a registered surveyor prior to the pouring of a concrete floor or the fixing of roof cladding to verify compliance.







Lighting

61. To maintain amenity for adjoining properties, all external lighting installed shall comply with Australian Standard 4282 – 1997 ‘Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting’.

Storage of Materials 62. All materials are to be stored within the boundaries of the property and not within the

road reserve.

Leighton Green Cypress 63. To reduce the potential for adverse amenity effects such as overshadowing, loss of

views, and loss of plant diversity, Leighton Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, shall not be planted on the site for the life of the development. Further information on Leightons Green Cypress may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees”. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.











On-site Detention/Rainwater Re-use

65. So as Council has accurate records of the stormwater system to aid with catchment management functions, work-as-executed details of the on-site detention and rainwater re-use system prepared by a Civil Engineer with membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.

66. To ensure that future owners are made aware of their responsibilities with respect to the on-site detention and rainwater re-use system, a positive covenant shall be created on the title of the allotment requiring that the owner(s) maintain and keep in working order the on-site detention and rainwater re-use system, unless otherwise approved in writing by Mosman Council.

A fee of $110.00 applies (GST-inclusive) for the checking, approval and execution of the Positive Covenant by Council and must accompany the Positive Covenant when lodged with Council.

The terms of the positive covenant shall read:

• In this Positive Covenant “detention and rainwater re-use system” shall mean the detention and rainwater re-use system approved by Mosman Municipal Council pursuant to Development Consent No. 8.2006.420.1 or any modification thereof approved by Mosman Municipal Council in writing.

• The Registered Proprietors will at their own expense well and sufficiently maintain and keep in good and substantial repair and working order any detention and rainwater re-use system which exists from time to time on the land.

• The Registered Proprietors shall not remove the detention and rainwater re-use system without the prior consent of Mosman Municipal Council.

• The Registered Proprietors hereby agree to indemnify Mosman Municipal Council from and against all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, sum or sums of money, compensation damages, costs and expenses which Mosman Municipal Council or any other person may suffer or incur as a result of any malfunction or non-operation of any such detention and rainwater re-use system arising from any failure of the Registered Proprietors to comply with the terms of this Covenant.

• The term “Registered Proprietors” shall include the Registered Proprietors of the land from time to time and all their heirs, executors, assigns and successors in title to the land and where there are two or more registered proprietors of the land the terms of this covenant shall bind all those registered proprietors jointly and severally.



67. For safety reasons, a resuscitation chart and warning sign containing information as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation 1998 must be erected within the pool enclosure and shall be maintained in a clearly legible condition.

Building Identification

68. The street number is to be affixed to the building.

Vegetation Removal

69. The Leighton Greens planted on the northern side of the driveway within the road reserve are to be removed.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES






EP/148 11A Badham Avenue DA NUMBER: 8.2007.45.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

including new first floor balcony, internal alterations and pool.

REPORTING OFFICER: Julie Van Look, Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 20 February 2007 (Downtime 0 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

C

3

DP

S

2

1

SP 43539

DP 516207

1

A

1

2

1DP 172352

SP 30387SP 41826

SP 2081 AB

SP 31071

1

2

SP 4485

1

3

32

SP 14663

SP 30194

SP 2

879

SP 2878

DP 372612

SP 7

5257

SP 41478SP 13266

SP 19443SP 2554

DP 1

0631

47

1119

SP 36769

A

3

SP 14324SP 13282

SP 13198

1

8

1

6

SP 8870

SP 5730

SP 10020

SP 9822

DP 115

D

1

B

1

DP 173572DP 341683

D

P61

223

1DP

177

927

DP 9

7710

1

7

DP

1100

0

DP 372612

DP 9

0012

8

DP 363741 3

SP 22994

SP 49513

1

DP 176276

SP 11004

SP 372711

SP 32177SP 34299

SP 46000

SP 37844

SP 75973

B1

1

D

DP 930107

DP 9293588668

-300

0

D P391911

1

1

1

DP 1

0501

2

DP 391406

DP 565064

DP 63013

DP 106568

101

1

2

1

DP 176072D P213857

D P

3264

48

DP 526973

DP 553336

411027

DP 413687DP 514775

SP 1829

7

B

C

DP 396388SP 5539

2

21

DP 3330

DP 940505

SP 2086

SP 5541

874

PT14

DP 4

041

9

B

20

3537

22

68

62

6466

70

26

39

2123

5650

41A

43B

43

45A45B

52

52A

54

45

47A47B

4749

11

1

53

79

11A

1517

17

1915

27

29

33

31

9

0

1B

52

52A

54

60B

56

58

60A

60

60C

5151

A

C

11C

42

132A1A

3

5

2B7

1

1B1A

4A

3C

66A

6B

ST

ST

ILL

ST

RAGLA

N

ST

AVE

BADH

AM

RD

MOSMAN


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is for the addition of a covered first floor balcony, internal reconfiguration, alterations to fenestration, the erection of a plunge pool and minor changes to landscaping. The proposal complies with Council’s numerical controls with the exception of the height plane control. The existing floor space ratio will be unchanged. Privacy between the first floor balcony and the neighbouring unit block is an issue, however, the applicant is willing to install a privacy screen in order to reduce the capacity for overlooking. The proposal is in keeping with the style and scale of the existing dwelling and will not have a negative impact on the streetscape. The proposal is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site was inspected on 6 March 2007. The site is located on the eastern side of Badham Avenue, between Mosman Street and Macleod Street. The site is a parallelogram in shape with a frontage of 14m to Badham Avenue. The site falls 5.1m to the west at an average gradient of 12.7%. The site presently contains a two storey single dwelling. Surrounding development consists of a mixture of single dwellings and multi-unit dwellings. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening Yes Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND In 1988 a first floor addition was added to the existing single storey dwelling. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Addition of a large first floor balcony set into the existing ground floor roof planes and

covered by an extension of the first floor roof; • Installation of a plunge pool;


• Changes to external windows and doors; • Internal reconfiguration, and • Associated landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area 300m2 479.1m2 N/A


Wall Height 7.2m 7.2m Yes

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area


Proposed 0m2 N/A

Total 233.5m2 N/A


Landscaped Area


Proposed 140m2 171m2 Yes DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks

Ground floor – North

Ground floor - South

First floor - North

First floor - South

Swimming Pool – North

0.9m

0.9m

1.5m

1.5m

2m

0.9m (existing)

0.9m (existing)

3.7m - (balcony)

3.2m

2m

N/A

N/A

Yes

Yes

Yes


72 0 (balcony) No





> 2hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – Pass

Thermal - Pass

Energy – Pass

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX

2004 The proposal meets water, thermal and energy standards as indicated in the numeric controls summary table. If approved, a condition will be imposed to ensure that BASIX commitments are implemented. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(c). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The extension to the roof complies with the numerical controls of Clause 13 and will not raise the overall height of the building. There is an existing second storey addition to the rear of the house and a single garage has been added at the lower ground level with a bedroom added above the garage. The proposed balcony is set back from the front of the house such that the house maintains a maximum of two storeys at all times. Floorspace Ratio The proposal does not seek to alter the existing floorspace ratio. Landscaped Area The proposal does not seek to alter the gross floor area and therefore, the landscaped area requirement remains the same. However, the proposal includes the removal of hard paving in the rear yard which results in an increase in landscaped area and compliance with the numeric controls of Clause 15. The proposed landscaped area is satisfactory. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed addition will not be readily visible from the harbour. The colours and materials will complement the existing dwelling and, therefore, it will not have a material impact on the townscape when viewed from the harbour.


Excavation Excavation is limited to that required for the proposed plunge pool and is satisfactory. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, however, it is in the vicinity of 60A, 60B and 60C Raglan Street which are blocks of flats of local heritage significance. The proposal will not have any heritage impacts upon the heritage items. 5.3.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.2 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposal complies with the numerical controls of Clause 4.2 with the balcony being set well in from the ground floor of the existing dwelling and from the property boundaries. The proposed balcony is also set back from the front of the existing dwelling. The scale of the addition is assessed as appropriate. Views The views from the neighbouring residential units are from front bedrooms to the south-west towards Mosman Bay and the city skyline. As the proposed balcony is set back from the front and sides of the existing dwelling and it is set into the existing roof area, it will not have a material impact on these views. Landscaping The proposal includes the removal of paving in the rear yard and its replacement with additional plantings resulting in a general dominance of landscape over built form. Streetscape and Building Design The streetscape of Badham Avenue is varied as the buildings consist of single dwelling houses of differing scales as well as multi-unit dwellings. The proposed alterations will complement the existing dwelling and, therefore, the streetscape, Privacy The proposed reduction in fenestration to the northern elevation of the ground floor will result in an increase in privacy for both the subject dwelling and the ground floor unit of No. 15 Badham Avenue. The balcony is set back 3.7m from the boundary with the residential units, however, it will result in an increased potential for overlooking of the windows of the neighbouring residential units. The applicant is willing to add a privacy screen to the northern elevation to mitigate overlooking and this has been included in the recommended conditions of consent. The balcony is at a different level from primary living areas and is unlikely therefore to be a source of noise impact from entertaining.


Overshadowing The site is south of the neighbouring block of units and therefore, will not have a material impact upon the units with regard to overshadowing. At 9am on 21st June, additional shadow from the roofed balcony falls onto Badham Avenue itself. At noon the additional shadow falls onto the roof of No. 11 Badham Avenue and at 3pm there will be no additional shadowing to No. 11 Badham Avenue. The proposal complies with Council’s solar access controls and is supported in this regard. Swimming Pool The proposed swimming pool complies with the setbacks set out in Clause 7.4. The associated mechanical equipment is to be located adjacent to the northern boundary in a sound proof enclosure. In the event of an approval, it is recommended that a condition be placed on the consent requiring that the solar swimming pool heating system complies with the appropriate provisions of the Mosman Exempt and Complying Development DCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. The proposed addition is in keeping with the existing style of the house and complementary materials are to be used. The Badham Avenue streetscape is quite varied and the proposed additions and alterations will blend with the existing character. 5.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Architect raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 28 February 2007 and 15 March 2007. 3 submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: • 11 Badham Avenue; • 1/15 Badham Avenue; and • 3/15 Badham Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below:


The balcony will cause a loss of visual privacy to the adjoining units; Comment: The recommendation includes the installation of a 1.6m high privacy screen to the balcony to prevent overlooking.

The balcony will create unacceptable noise impacts for the neighbours. Comment: The balcony is set back from the side boundaries and is removed from primary living/entertaining areas which are all located on the ground floor. Noise impacts from normal household use of the balcony is assessed as reasonable.

The balcony could be enclosed at a later date to provide extra floorspace; Comment: The enclosure of the balcony would require development consent and any application to enclose the balcony would be assessed against Council’s controls at that time.

The proposed addition will cause overshadowing and loss of sunlight to the adjoining units;

Comment: The units are located to the north of the subject site, therefore, any shadows will fall away from the units.

The balcony will create excessive bulk and have a negative impact on the streetscape;

Comment: The proposal complies with Council’s numeric controls for height and floorspace ratio. The balcony is an open sided structure which is set well back from the front and sides of the house and will not create unreasonable bulk.

The proposed balcony will cause a loss of views to the sky; Comment: The views from the neighbouring residential units are to the south-west towards Mosman Bay and the city skyline and are viewed from the bedrooms towards the front of the units. As the proposed balcony is set back from the front and sides of the existing dwelling and it is to be set into the existing roof area, it will not have a material impact on these views.

The enlargement of the windows in the ground floor front room will result in a loss of privacy;

Comment: The windows are being reduced not enlarged and therefore there will be a material increase in privacy between the subject dwelling and the adjacent units.

The noise from the existing air conditioning units is excessive; Comment: This matter has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer as it is outside the scope of this report.

The waste management will cause inconvenience to neighbours during construction; Comment: The waste management plan seeks to identify and separate materials for disposal from the site. The proposal is not a substantial redevelopment of the site. The works are not assessed as being likely to cause greater inconvenience to neighbours than usual building works.

The notification plans are insufficient, the A4 sized plans are too small and not to scale.


Comment: The A4 Notification Plans are sent to neighbours to provide an understanding of what is proposed. The notification letter makes clear that plans drawn to scale are available for viewing at Council and the library. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed against the relevant statutory and policy controls and is satisfactory. The issue of overlooking towards the residential units can be resolved by the addition of a privacy screen. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Max Lanser Architect. The owners are Mr and Mrs Key. The estimated value of works is $227,250.00. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site not be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2007.45.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



6355/07 15 January 2007 Stutchbury Jaques Pty Ltd

2006/25 1 December 2006 Max Lanser Architect Pty Ltd

2006/25 2 January 2007 Max Lanser Architect Pty Ltd



30 January 2007 Max Lanser Architect Pty Ltd

Solar Swimming Pool Heating System 2. The solar swimming pool heating system must comply with the provisions of ‘solar

water heaters and solar pool heating systems’ in Schedule 1 of the Mosman Development Control Plan Exempt and Complying Development.

Privacy Screen 3. A privacy screen is to be installed on the northern elevation of the balcony. It is to be

no less than 1.6m in height from the floor of the balcony and no greater than 25% of its area shall be open.












Retaining Walls


Sydney Water







Long Service Levy


Security Deposit














Home Building Act












(a) if adjoining public land it shall be covered in cyclone wire mesh to discourage the graffiti

(b) the toe of the hoarding fence or its supporting structure must not protrude onto Council land including footpath areas so as to avoid a trip hazard

(c) the hoarding fence must be securely fixed to withstand strong winds

(d) the fence must have only one point of entry which must correspond with the vehicle crossing and have inward opening gates or gates which are removable and fitted with a locking device

(e) the hoarding/fence must have no protruding bolts nails or similar devices which may cause injury.


Where construction requirements or site constraints necessitate the hoarding or fencing being located on Council land, a Footpath/Nature Strip/Roadway Occupation


form is to be lodged with Council and all fees paid prior to the hoarding/fencing being erected. (a copy of the form is available on Council's website).




























Site Work Hours













Council Property




27. To minimise impacts upon trees to be retained, no permanent fill or storage of building materials, excavated fill or topsoil during site works shall take place within their driplines.

28. To minimise disturbance to retained trees, no excavation shall take place within the critical root zone, measured as a radius from the trunk of the tree. Excavation may occur between the critical and primary root zones but only by hand under the supervision of an experienced arborist or tree surgeon.

Species Location Critical Root Zone

Primary Root Zone

False Olive Adjacent to the rear boundary

1.5m 1.2m

Cheese tree Adjacent to the rear boundary

1.5m 1.2m

In the event that major structural or feeder roots are encountered between the critical and primary root zones, the arborist is to recommend and or implement appropriate measures to ensure the retention of the tree. If these measures involve structural alterations to the building or work, such measures must be certified by a practicing Structural Engineer that the modified plans/details comply with the relevant Building Code of Australia and/or Australian Standards. (Note: Council’s Tree Management Officer may be contacted for advice regarding appropriate tree protection measures).

Tree Preservation

29. All street trees and trees on private property that are protected under Mosman Council’s Tree Preservation Order 2003, shall be retained except where Council's


prior written consent has been obtained, or where after approval of the relevant Construction Certificate, trees stand within the envelope of approved buildings or within the alignment of approved permanent paved vehicular access roads and parking areas.


30. To reduce the potential for adverse amenity effects such as overshadowing, loss of views, and loss of plant diversity, Leighton Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, shall not be planted on the site for the life of the development. Further information on Leightons Green Cypress may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees”. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

BASIX Certificate




33. Any mechanical equipment associated with a pool, spa or water feature shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point at the boundary with another property, including a public place.


35. To ensure there is sufficient area to conduct resuscitation works, the walkway/deck shall have a minimum width of 900mm clear of any obstructions.



Toilet Facilities









Approved Plans


























PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES


(i) Headings such as “Prior To The Release Of The Construction Certificate” together with bolded notes that immediately follow, form part of this Notice of Determination.


Conditions under the respective headings shall be read in the context of the heading and note.
















EP/149 3 Raglan Street DA NUMBER: 8.2007.5.1 PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to the forecourt of an existing

multiple dwelling including relocation of street entry and re-landscaping of Council Reserve.

REPORTING OFFICER: Ailsa Mitchell, Senior Town Planner LODGEMENT DATE: 11 January 2007 (Downtime 30 days) OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

1012 17

1416

2018

715

7B

8

911

35

6A 6

4

1

2

321

12

15

4

11A

86

6

1719

104A

2A2

2A 79A

9B11

15

1

RAG

LAN

DANSIE WALKCHARLES

MU

SGR

AVE

HERRON WALK

CU

RR P

CurraghbeenaPoint


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is for the upgrade of an existing underground car park. The works include the installation of a new waterproof membrane over the carpark roof slab and requires the removal and replacement of the landscaping above, which constitutes the Curraghbeena Point Lookout, a Reserve owned by Council. The works are to be undertaken by the owners of No. 3 Raglan Street. Council are part owners of the site through a Deed of Agreement dated 15 May 1992 and consent has been granted for the lodgement of the application. The matter is required to be reported to Council as to the works are within the Council Reserve. The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning controls and will not have any amenity impact on adjoining neighbours. There have been no submissions in relation to the application, and Council’s Heritage Advisor and Landscape Designer have not raised any objection. The application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the eastern side of Raglan Street, south of the junction with Herron Walk. The site is irregular in shape and is located adjacent to No.3 Raglan Street. No 3 Raglan Street presently contains a six storey multiple dwelling development. Three storeys are located above street level and three below. The building is commonly known as 'The Castle'. At the Raglan Street frontage there is a covered car park created by stratum subdivision of Council land, providing car parking spaces for the apartments. Council's Reserve is located above the car park. Surrounding development consists of multiple dwellings and large detached houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The proposed works involve the installation of a new waterproof membrane to the existing underground car park and the consequent replacement of landscaping on Curraghbeena Point Lookout which is a Council Reserve. The underground car park was originally leased to No.3 Raglan Street by Council and formed part of Raglan Street road reserve. On 15 May 1992 the underground car park was acquired by No.3 Raglan Street from Council. The relevant clause in the Deed between the parties is as follows: 1. The Council will sell to the Purchaser and the Purchaser will purchase from the

Council a stratum of that part of the land (" the stratum") in height to the top of the


existing roof of the underground garage which is presently erected below the surface of the land to the intent that all soil and material above the said roof and all air above the said roof shall remain the property of Council.

On 19 April 1993 consent was granted for the subdivision of the car park and the Council Reserve above the car park as per the Deed of Agreement. The proposed works are for the upgrading of the car parking structure and the removal of the roof membrane, replacement of the top soil, replacement of balustrading and landscape works to the Council Reserve. The applicant was advised that the original landscape plan was a residential landscape design which resulted in the privatisation of the Council Reserve. The applicant subsequently met with Council's Landscape Designer and an amended landscape plan was submitted to Council on the 30 May 2007 which is the subject of this assessment. The applicant also requested that Council meet a proportion of the cost of replacing the existing balustrading however the applicant has been advised that the existing balustrade is to remain as this is the standard Council balustrading used within the municipality. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: • Removal of all existing material above the existing concrete car park roof; • Cleaning of existing concrete structure; • Installation of a new waterproof membrane over the whole of the existing car park roof;

and • Landscape works to Council Reserve including new path and planting. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 • Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 • Mosman Residential Development Control Plan • Notifications Development Control Plan • Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 • Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy


5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Site Area No change 996.1m2 N/A


Wall Height 7.2m 2.83m Yes

Number of Storeys 1 storey 1 storey Yes

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) Applies Works behind FBL

Yes

5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.3 SREP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 The proposal does not create detrimental visual impacts when viewed from the harbour. The proposal does not significantly alter the existing situation and will continue to be generally in keeping with the character of the area and there are no significant natural features within the property and the surrounding area which will be affected. 5.2.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(b) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a multiple dwelling development and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. A small portion of Curraghbeena Point Lookout towards the northern boundary is not above the underground garage and remains in the road reserve, however as it is associated with the works to the Reserve, it has been included in the site area calculation. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The works are to the existing garage structure which is below the maximum height control. The proposal does not alter the height of the existing multiple dwelling development. The proposal satisfies the objectives of Clause 13 of MLEP. Floorspace Ratio The proposal does not alter the floorspace ratio of the existing multiple dwelling development. Landscaped Area The new landscape works are within the Council Reserve and this has no impact upon the existing landscaped area provision of the subject site.


Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposal does not involve any change to the existing building envelope or bulk, it will not have any adverse impact upon the existing natural environment and will not be visually prominent when viewed from the foreshore. The proposed works will not result in any detrimental impacts upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal satisfies Clause 27 of MLEP. Excavation Excavation associated with the proposed works is limited to that required for the scraping away of the soil above the carpark roof slab. Heritage No 3 Raglan Street is listed as a Heritage Item as is Raglan Street. It is also within proximity to Nos. 5, 7, 9, 11 and 15 Raglan Street which are also identified as heritage items. The site is not within a heritage conservation area. Council's Heritage Advisor has assessed the proposal and raises no issues with regards to the impact upon the heritage items. A comment was provided with regards to the proposed material for the balustrading however the existing balustrading is to remain. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Views The proposed works will have no impact upon the existing views afforded to the surrounding properties. Landscaping Council's Landscape Architect has assessed the proposed landscaping for the Council Reserve as satisfactory and has noted that it improves the existing landscaping on site and provides a better environment for the public using the Council Reserve. Conditions have been recommended to ensure the new landscaping is maintained for a 12 month period by the beneficiary of this consent. To ensure the works are undertaken in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of Council a condition is recommended that a legal agreement be entered into with the Proprietors of the Strata Plan of 3 Raglan Street before work can be undertaken. Streetscape and Building Design The entrance stairs are to be relocated to the centre of the Curraghbeena Point Lookout rather than being located on the far left. This is the main change to the streetscape. This will improve public access to the site as currently the existing stairs although for public use are visually associated with the multiple dwelling development. The circular paving will also divide pedestrian access between the multiple dwelling and the Reserve. Currently access is via one path directly in front of the entrance to the multiple dwelling. The new configuration will enhance access to the Reserve. The new landscaping will provide a more attractive setting and will be an improvement to the current landscaping on the Council Reserve.


Council's Development Engineer has provided conditions to ensure that the paving within the Reserve is approved by Council' s Director of Environment and Planning and that new signage is provided which will also require approval by Council's Director of Environment and Planning. Car Parking and Access The proposal does not alter the existing car park configuration or access. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan, Sirius and Bradleys townscape. The proposal is for maintenance upgrade works to the underground car park and includes new replacement landscaping to the Council Reserve. The proposed works will have minimal impact upon the existing site and will not have any detrimental impact upon the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal does not alter the car parking arrangement within the existing underground car park. 5.3.4 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 If the application is approved, a costs summary report will be required to establish the appropriate levy to be paid under the Contributions Plan. 5.3.5 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The subject site is located adjacent to Little Sirius Cove which is Landscape Area Type 8 - urban development with scattered trees- Terrestrial within the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP. It is stated in the Statement of Character and Intent for this area that development must ensure that vegetation is integrated with land-based development and that natural features that are significant along the foreshore are preserved. The car park and reserve are not highly visible from the Harbour and the site is not located on the foreshore. The proposed works are mainly for maintenance and will not significantly alter the existing situation. 5.3.6 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy The walls around the Council Reserve are listed as Council Retaining walls within road boundaries. The proposed works include the relocation of the access stairs to the centre of the site and the rebuilding of this part of the sandstone wall to match existing. This is acceptable as the new location of the stairs will improve access to the Council Reserve and will have minimal impact upon the retaining wall. A condition will be imposed to ensure that the wall is rebuilt to match the existing retaining wall. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.


6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Architect has made the following comments: The revised landscape plan by Paul Scrivener (Issue B) has been amended to show

the suggestions outlined in the previous landscape comments dated 28.3.07.

• There is no hedging around the perimeters of the space, instead there is some proposed low planting which is more suitable for a public area;

• The existing perimeter council handrails are to remain; • The existing park benches are to be reinstalled; • The proposed urn has been removed from the circular area of pathway and

replaced with low planting. The shape of the pathway is suitable for a mixed residential/public use area as it provides a visual link to the open space from the path for members of the public instead of simply leading to the apartment building

Therefore I have no further issues with the Landscape Plan.

Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

I am in general agreement with this proposal but would prefer the balustrade to be powder coated to reduce its visual impact on public views to the harbour.

Council’s Development Engineer made the following comment: I have assessed the application and have submitted additional comments. These

comments are to allow Council to be in a position to rectify any problems if the builder/owners cannot complete the work in a satisfactory manner.

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 23 January and 6 February 2007. No submissions were received in response to the notification of the application. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed works are for the maintenance upgrade of the existing underground car park which necessitates removal of the existing landscaping on Curraghbeena Point Lookout and its replacement. The existing access stairs to the Reserve are to be relocated to be more centrally located which will improve access to the Council Reserve. The application has been assessed against all relevant statutory and policy controls. Having regard to the merit assessment of the proposal, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed in relation to the opportunities and constraints of the site and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents and users of the Reserve. Further, the development successfully minimises adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and streetscape. The proposal is a satisfactory development having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and may be granted approval.


Conditions have been included in the consent to safeguard Council's interests as landowner and ensure that the Reserve is returned to the community in good condition. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Liddy and Associates. The owner is Mosman Council and the Proprietors of the Strata Plan of 3 Raglan Street. The estimated value of works is $100,000. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2007.5.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



Drawing number A1, ref 5296,

December 2006 David Liddy & Associates

Drawing number 3, ref 5296, October 2006 David Liddy & Associates

06/10x/DAx Issue B 5 May 2007 Paul Scrivener Landscape Architect

6349/06 15 December 2007 Stutchbury Jaques Pty Ltd



October 2006 David Liddy & Associates

Statement of Heritage Impact October 2006 David Liddy & Associates




2. Two copies of architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be


signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.





Protection of Council Assets and Public Amenity 4. In order to insure the works are undertaken in an appropriate time frame, the

Proprietors of the Strata Plan of 3 Raglan Street is to enter into a legal agreement with Council detailing an appropriate time frame i.e. 12 months for the work to be completed. The wording of the legal agreement is to be to the satisfaction of Councils Solicitors and the Director of Environment and Planning. The cost of preparing this legal agreement is to be borne by the applicant.

5. To ensure work is completed in a satisfactory manner and in an appropriate time frame, a cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $130,000 in favour of Council shall be provided by the Proprietors of the Strata Plan of 3 Raglan Street prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

Retaining Walls


Sydney Water







Utility Services


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit


Pavers

11. The types of pavers proposed are to be approved by Councils Director of Environment and Planning before being installed. Details of the pavers are to be submitted and approved before the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Construction Management Plan

12. To ensure that the upper slab of the car park is not damaged by the removal of the soil and the roof membrane a construction management plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. The Construction Management Plan shall detail the methods for removal of the soil and roof membrane without placing excessive loads on the roof slab of the car park.

Landscape Maintenance Strategy

13. To ensure the survival of the landscaping following works, a landscape maintenance strategy is to be administered by the beneficiary of consent DA 8.2007.5.1 over a 12 month establishment period following the issue of the Occupation Certificate. It shall be prepared and provided to Council’s or the Accredited Certifier’s satisfaction with the Construction Certificate Application. The strategy is to address maintenance issues such as plant survival, irrigation, soil testing, weeding, plant staking, fertilising, pest and disease control, replanting, remedial pruning and the like.


14. To minimise disruption to and ensure reasonable safety for surrounding public and private property during site works, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Traffic Engineer and Traffic Committee. The plan is to address matters raised in Council’s Guide For Construction Traffic Management Plans which is available in Appendix 4 of Council’s “Transport


Development Control Plan”. All fees are to be paid before the issue of the Construction Certificate.



















Home Building Act























Note: This document is available from the Department of Planning.'

Soil mix

20. The Contractor will supply soil and/or soil additives that adheres to Australian Standard for Garden Soil for natives. The Contractor shall nominate the source of supply for soil mix and submit a 5-kg sample of the soil mix to Council’s Landscape Architect prior to commencing work on site.









Retaining Wall 24. Any retaining wall constructed is to be faced with sandstone to match existing.

Demolition

25. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601-2001: The Demolition of Structures.


Signage 26. New signage identifying the reserve is to be installed. The location and type of

signage are to be approved by Councils Director of Environment and Planning before being installed.


27. All works and traffic movements must be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan. A copy of the Plan must be kept on site at all times and made available to the PCA or Council officers on request.

Partial Demolition

28. Where asbestos material shall be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall be re-used or sold.









Site Work Hours













Dust Control

35. Appropriate measures (e.g. fine water spray) shall be employed during demolition, excavation and construction works to prevent the emission of dust and other impurities into the surrounding environment. All such measures shall be co-ordinated with site sedimentation controls to ensure polluted waters do not leave the site.

Council Property



Landfill

38. The fill material imported to the site is to consist of clean fill material only, that is, non-contaminated excavated material (i.e. soil, rock or similar material). Putrescible and non-putrescible solid waste, including demolition material, is not permitted.


Landscape Mulch

39. Mulches imported to the site must be derived from native species. Where native vegetation is removed as part of the development, it shall be mulched where possible and used in the final landscaping.



Tree Preservation



42. To reduce the potential for adverse amenity effects such as overshadowing, loss of views, and loss of plant diversity, Leighton Green Cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii or any of its cultivars, shall not be planted on the site for the life of the development. Further information on Leightons Green Cypress may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Trees”. In the event of any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans










• Prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections; and














PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION

The following conditions must be satisfied during occupation or use of the development.

Landscape Maintenance Strategy

50. To ensure the survival of landscaping following work, the beneficiary of consent DA 8.2007.5.1 is to implement the landscape maintenance strategy submitted with the Construction Certificate Application for a 12 month period following the release of the Occupation Certificate.

ADVICE / NOTES







EP/150 Development Applications MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Deputy Manager Development Services SUMMARY Development Applications that have been received and dealt with by Council’s Director Environment and Planning under the provisions of Section 378 (Delegated Authority) of the Local Government Act 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Deputy Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes DIRECTOR'S REPORT No Address/Description DA No. Applicant

1. 44 Raglan Street Proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including internal reconfiguration of the ground floor, upper level addition, new swimming pool and landscaping

8.2006.364.1 Mr T Ryan & Ms H Corbett

2. 35 Upper Avenue Road Alterations and additions

8.2006.365.1 Ms M Taylor

3. 6 Arbutus Street Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling comprising a room to the rear of the existing first floor level

8.2006.368.1 HartDesign Pty Ltd

4. 7A Inkerman Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including cabana and swimming pool

8.2006.407.1 SDA International Pty Ltd

5. 5 Hunter Road Proposed alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new openings, balconies and dormer additions

8.2006.456.1 Drawtech Group Pty Ltd


No Address/Description DA No. Applicant 6. 28 Holt Avenue

Proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including new rear pool and landscaping, rear extension to lower ground and ground floor levels including deck, and internal refurbishment

8.2006.482.1 Mr R & Mrs R Savage

7. 3 Hunter Road Demolition of the existing dwelling and garage and erection of a new two storey dwelling with integrated garage

8.2006.487.1 Dixon Andrews Architects

8. 10 Glover Street Demolition of an existing dwelling house and erection of a new dwelling house, pool and associated landscaping

8.2006.488.1 Mr & Mrs Kyrikos c/- Kira Robson

9. 28 Bond Street Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling including first floor addition and internal reconfiguration

8.2007.39.1 Mr D Court

10. Unit 8C/456 Military Road (Refusal) Enclosure of a balcony

8.2007.40.1 Mr B & Mrs M A Fitzpatrick

11. 8 Milner Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising ground floor deck addition to rear

8.2007.43.1 Linklater Associates Pty Ltd

12. 19 Avenue Road Proposed extension of gable roof over the existing front verandah

8.2007.52.1 G Wilson

13. 46A Wyong Road Alterations and additions to a dwelling house including new walls, roof to garage, extension of rear entry, new timber deck at front and rear and new landscaping

8.2007.73.1 Ms P Henry & Mr S Gorry

14. 6 Clifton Street Extension of an existing deck at the rear

8.2007.75.1 Mr M Biancardi

15. 3/57-59 Prince Street Proposed alterations and additions for the enclosure of an existing undercover area at rear of residential flat building

8.2007.77.1 Oak Home Improvements


No Address/Description DA No. Applicant 16. 717 Military Road

Proposed use of the premises as a day spa with associated internal works

8.2007.78.1 Linda Rankins

17. 28 Bradleys Head Road Proposed alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including internal alterations to existing dwelling, two storey plus basement addition to rear and new swimming pool

8.2007.82.1 Tim Allison Associates

18. 15A Parriwi Road Construction of a new pond, louvres and vergola

8.2007.88.1 Corben Architects

19. 44 Bradleys Head Road New carport over existing hardstand

8.2007.116.1 North Shore Building Design Group


EP/151 Development Control Unit MOSPLAN REF: 01.01.02 REPORT BY: Director Corporate Services, Max Glyde SUMMARY Minutes of the Development Control Unit meeting held on 24 January 2007. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Director Corporate Services recommends: That the Minutes of the Development Control Unit meeting held on 24 January 2007 be received and noted. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT Minutes of the Development Control Unit meeting of 24 January 2007 are circulated for the information of Councillors and for record purposes. Recommendation endorsed by General Manager. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Minute Book Attachments • Minutes of the Development Control Unit meeting of 24 January 2007.


EP/152 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Angelo Falato, Manager Development Services SUMMARY To update Council on litigation costs and the distribution of work to Council’s legal panel for development application related matters. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes REPORT The purpose of this report is to keep Council up to date with development application related litigation costs incurred for the financial year and to inform Council which legal firm has been allocated work. The report also provides a brief synopsis on the outcome of litigation matters. Costs include fees for Council’s solicitors and any expert witnesses engaged but do not account for time spent by Council staff either engaged in defending the appeal or in undertaking administrative tasks associated with the carriage of the appeal. In some cases, work has been carried out but Council has not yet been billed or not billed to the full extent. In accordance with Council's resolution of 20 March 2007, a breakdown of costs for 613 Military Road is also provided. 2006-2007 Budget Summary Budget allocation 2006-2007 $250,000.00

Costs incurred up to 30 June 2007 $341,065.87

Expenditure for 2006-2007 calculated on costs incurred to date $341,065.87

Budget deficit $ 91,065.87


Costs Trend

COSTS TRENDS WITH 2006-2007 FIGURE

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

COSTS AS AT THIS MONTH IN PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR

$325,000

$330,000

$335,000

$340,000

$345,000

$350,000

$355,000

$360,000

$365,000

$370,000

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council - 17 July 2007 Page 181

Pike Pike and Fenwick

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 05-06 Appeal Costs ($)

06-07 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

613 Military Road 8.2006.37.1

Christian Science Church redevelopment

Pending Pending Upheld 2 July 2007 - 147,705.41 3, 5

803 Military Road (cnr Raglan Street

8.2005.63.1 Two storey commercial additions

Refuse Defer for legal advice re s94

Advice provided. Planning agreement prepared - Nil to date 1

91 Ourimbah Road 13.2006.52.1

Garage built without approval

Order to demolish Order issued Court upholds Council order - 45.00 2

74-82 Bradleys Head Road

8.2006.479.1 Childcare centre Pending Pending Hearing 17 & 18 July 2007 - Nil to date 4

5 Myahgah Mews 8.2006.203.2

S96 Commercial Premises

Pending Pending Callover 18 July 2007 - Nil to date -

5-7 Punch Street 8.2006.247.2 S96 Multiple

Dwelling Pending Pending Callover 27 July 2007 - Nil to date -

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 30 JUNE 2007 $201,467.08

Reports to Ordinary Meeting of Council - 17 July 2007 Page 182

Home Wilkinson Lowry

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 05-06 Appeal Costs ($)

06-07 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

69 Parriwi Road 8.2006.21.1

Dwelling, inclinator, carport

Approval Refused Appeal upheld 2 May 2007 - 50,493.17

21A Redan Street 8.2006.249.1 Dwelling Pending Pending Discontinued - 11,312.55

32 Raglan Street 8.2006.19.1 Dwelling

additions Approval Approval S.123 neighbour appeal seeking consent to be declared void - 1,504.51

23 Boyle Street 8.2005.385.1 Dwelling Approval Approval On site hearing 16 August 2007 - Nil to date

244 Raglan Street 8.2006.153.2

Demolition, subdivision into 2 lots and 2 new dwellings

Pending Pending Callover 27 July 2007 - Nil to date

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 30 JUNE 2007 $134,467.38 Notes: 1 Matter referred to PPF due to previous involvement in litigation at this site. 2. Applicant ordered to pay Council's costs as agreed or assessed. 3. Applicant to pay Council's cost for assessing amended plans 4. Matter referred to PPF due to similar issues with present childcare centre appeal at 613 Military Road 5. Costs comprise $59,018 for Godden Mackay Heritage, $16,107 for John Coady Traffic, $3,819 for Wilkinson Murray Acoustics, $3,675 Disability and

Access Consultants Pty Ltd, $29,100 for Peter Tomasetti Barrister, and $35,986 for Pike Pike & Fenwick Solicitors

Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council - 17 July 2007 Page 183

cl-agenda.pdf · information about procedures for the ordinary meeting of council open question...

Documents