no rt h s y dne y co unci l re p o rt s...external deck new level 1 – rumpus/pool • excavation...

Item ____IPP05_______ - REPORTS -_______01/04/2015________

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

NSIPP MEETING HELD ON 01/04/15

Attachments: 1. Site Plan

2. Drawings 3. Clause 4.6 variation (height)

4. View diagrams 5. Shadow diagrams

6. Survey diagram ADDRESS/WARD: 3 Bay View Street, Lavender Bay (V) APPLICATION No: DA 215/14 PROPOSAL: Substantial alterations and additions to create a new dwelling,

including landscaping, drainage and associated works PLANS REF: Drawings numbered DA.01, DA.02, DA.03, DA.04, DA.05,

DA.06, DA.06.1, DA09 to DA15, drawn by Tobias Partners, and received by Council on 5/3/15

OWNER: Bardia Housman Beatriz Pena Alda APPLICANT: Tobias Partners AUTHOR: Susanna Cheng, Senior Assessment Officer DATE OF REPORT: 23 March 2015 DATE LODGED: 3 July 2014

AMENDED: 30/7/14 (BASIX); 30/10/14 (amended DA) & 5/3/15 (duplicates); 30/10/14 (views); 30/1/15 (rental history); 5/3/15 (site coverage)

SUBMISSIONS: Seven (7) RECOMMENDATION: Approval

Report of Susanna Cheng, Senior Assessment Officer Page 2 Re: 3 Bay View Street, Lavender Bay

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development application seeks Council’s approval for substantial alterations and additions to create a new dwelling, including landscaping, drainage and associated works. The application is reported to NSIPP for determination due to variation to Council’s controls relating to Building Height and public submissions. The maximum Building Height for the site is 8.5m pursuant to clause 4.3 of NSLEP 2013. The proposed variations are largely attributable to the extension of an existing non-compliant main ridge and a rear flat roof, being up to 10.8m (27%) at the rear roof gable and 9.2m (8.2%) at the level 5 balcony balustrade. Council’s notification of the DA attracted seven (7) submissions raising particular concerns about building envelope, view loss, overshadowing, privacy, landscaping, excavation, foreshore access. The submitters’ concerns have been assessed in relation to the relevant controls and addressed in this report. The proposed Building Height will not result in excessive bulk and scale and the development will be comparable in scale to surrounding foreshore development. The existing main gable ridge height will be maintained and not extend beyond the existing rear building line. The dwelling will conform to the topography, stepping down in height toward the foreshore. The development will not result in any material adverse impacts arising from the proposed Building Height variation, with the exception of the outermost balcony on level 5 which is uncharacteristic and will present a moderate privacy impact. It is recommended that this balcony be deleted by condition. The proposal seeks approval for departure from Council’s site coverage provision which is attributable to single-storey parts of the dwelling that will be adequately set back from the boundaries and not give rise to any material amenity impacts. The marginal increase in site coverage of 6.3% over a site area of 959m2

, and over steep terrain, is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances and comparable to adjoining foreshore properties. The increased site coverage will be adequately compensated for by the provision of a large non-trafficable green roof that will maintain the landscaped terrace character and amenity of the site. The proposed landscaping will break down and soften the built form while maintaining surrounding view amenity.

The view impacts arising from the development are largely attributable to a height-compliant garage and are assessed to be reasonable. Seven of the nine neighbouring properties assessed will have negligible to minor view impacts. The properties assessed as having moderate view impacts will be capable of maintaining a high level of view amenity despite the development. The proposed shadow impacts are assessed to be reasonable, with affected dwellings in the adjoining apartment building generally maintaining adequate midwinter solar access. The most impacted unit is located below street level at the side/rear of the adjoining property, relying on solar access across a side boundary. However, it is considered unreasonable to fetter the proposed development generally in accordance with policy objectives, in order to maintain the existing amenity of the low level unit. Following this assessment the development application is considered to be reasonable in the circumstances and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Report of Susanna Cheng, Senior Assessment Officer Page 3 Re: 3 Bay View Street, Lavender Bay LOCATION MAP

Property/Applicant Submitters - Properties Notified


DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The application seeks approval for substantial alterations and additions to create a new dwelling house, including landscaping, drainage and associated works. A photomontage of the development is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Photomontage of proposed development

The proposal includes the following works:

Level 5 – Garage & Attic Office • Demolition of existing garage and replacement with new garage accommodating a car

stacker for 4 cars • Reconfiguration of part of the roof to form an attic study/office with balcony and

outdoor deck Level 4 – Bedrooms • Excavation beneath garage to accommodate new laundry and Bedroom 01 with

courtyard • Demolition, reconfiguration and additions toward the rear (southeast) of the building to

accommodate a Master Bedroom and Bedrooms 02 & 03 Level 3 – Guest Accommodation & Playrooms • Demolition, reconfiguration and additions toward the rear of the building to

accommodate a Guest/Living Room, playrooms, and void to living areas below • Landscaped (non-trafficable) roof over Level 2


New Level 2 – Living, Dining, Kitchen • Excavation to create new level accommodating kitchen, dining room, living areas and

external deck New Level 1 – Rumpus/Pool • Excavation to create new level accommodating bar/rumpus, lift motor/plant room and

cellar General internal works • Passenger Lifts 01 & 02 • Platform (service) lift in garage General external works • New and modified windows on the northern elevation, and skylights • Earthworks and landscaping • New deck and minor works to existing pool

Characterisation of the proposal as “alterations and additions” or new building The proposed development involves extensive works. The planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Coorey v Municipality of Hunters Hill [2013] NSWLEC 1187 for determining if a development application should be described as being for additions and alterations rather than a new development, is applied as follows: The first question to be considered is “what is the purpose for determining whether this application should be characterised as being for additions and/or alterations to an existing structure rather than an application for a new structure?” The characterisation of the proposal has implications on the comparative analysis of existing and proposed impacts of development, and the reasonableness of any proposed variations from the provisions in the LEP and DCP. In determining whether an application is appropriate to be regarded as for additions and/or alterations or not, it is appropriate to follow, by broad analogy, the process discussed by Bignold J in Moto Projects (No 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280; (1999) 106 LGERA 298 – namely undertaking both a qualitative and a quantitative analysis of what is proposed compared to what is currently in existence. In this consideration, regard should be had to such of the matters in the following lists of matters as are relevant to the enquiry: Qualitative issues • How is the appearance of the existing building to be changed when viewed from public

places? The appearance of the building will be transformed from a 2-storey red-brick building to a larger scale multi-level contemporary style building with a modern facade. The traditional gable-roof form will however be maintained and remain legible from Lavender Bay.


• To what extent, if any, will existing landscaping be removed and how will that affect the setting of the building when viewed from public places? The landscape setting of the building as viewed from Lavender Bay will be significantly altered; in particular, existing lawn terraces will be replaced with landscaping provided on top of and around the building additions.

• To what extent, if any, will the proposal impact on a heritage item, the curtilage of a heritage item or a heritage conservation area? The development will not have any detrimental impact on the heritage seawall for which no works are proposed, or to the heritage retaining wall on the Bay View Street opposite to the site as the proposed garage is compatible with the existing streetscape.

• What additional structures, if any, in the curtilage of the existing building will be demolished or altered if the proposal is approved? A timber cabana adjacent to the existing pool will be demolished.

• What is the extent, if any, of any proposed change to the use of the building? The residential use will be maintained in modified form and intensity, comprising a single dwelling (capable of accommodating a large household), in place of 4 x 1-bedroom units.

• To what extent, if any, will the proposed development result in any change to the streetscape in which the building is located? The streetscape, which is dominated by single-storey garage structures, will be maintained.

• To what extent, if any, are the existing access arrangements for the building proposed to be altered? Existing site access in alignment with the southern side boundary will be generally maintained, however, internalised within the building.

• To what extent, if any, will the outlook from within the existing building be altered as a consequence the proposed development? The primary outlook from the building toward the harbour will be retained and significantly improved by the provision of larger openings and balconies. Northern side windows will generally be retained; however, southern openings and external access way will be internalised.

• Is the proposed demolition so extensive to cause that which remains to lose the characteristics of the form of the existing structure? The proposed demolitions are such that the existing gable roofed building will remain discernible, however, substantially behind a contemporary facade at the foreshore elevation.

Quantitative issues • To what extent is the site coverage proposed to be changed?

The development will result in a 6.3% increase in site coverage compared to existing, from 398m2 (41.5%) to 458m2 (47.8%), and across a site area of 959m2.


• To what extent are any existing non-compliances with numerical controls either increased or diminished by the proposal? The development will involve localised increases in height of 0.8m at the rear of the existing gable by 0.9m at the rear flat roof; however, the height of the main ridge will be maintained.

• To what extent is the building envelope proposed to be changed? The new basement and part-basement levels 1 & 2 will in most part be excavated into and contained within the terraced levels of the site. The primary building line at the rear on the upper levels will be located approximately 1.3m east, generally in alignment with the existing balcony. The building envelope will be elsewhere enlarged by the enclosure of an existing external path along the southern boundary, and extension of the gable roof generally to the same profile and height. The envelope of the garage structure will be increased, in most part below grade.

• To what extent are boundary setbacks proposed to be changed? The setbacks of the existing building will generally be maintained, with the exception of the garage which will be extended to the side boundaries, and in the location of the southern setback where the existing external stairway and verandah will be enclosed, reducing the setback to between 636mm and 2.6m. The lower and basement levels will generally be set back 900mm from the side boundaries and conform to the existing terraced topography of the site.

• To what extent will the present numerical degree of landscaping on the site be changed? Technical landscape area (as defined in NSDCP 2013) will be reduced by 238m2, from 488m2 to 250m2, being a significant reduction of 24.9% from 51% to 26.1% of site area.

• To what extent will the existing floor space ratio be altered? The basement and part-basement levels 1 & 2 will add significantly to the floor area of the dwelling.

• To what extent will there be changes in the roof form? The existing main gable roof, and the flat-roofed garage, will be retained.

• To what extent will there be alterations to car parking/garaging on the site and/or within the building? The existing double garage will be excavated to accommodate a car stacker which will double the parking capacity to 4 cars.

• To what extent is the existing landform proposed to be changed by cut and/or fill to give effect to the proposed development? The existing terraced topography will be reflected in the proposed building; however, the landscape terraces will be replaced with plantings on building structure.

• What relationship does the proportion of the retained building bear to the proposed new development? The existing structure will be obscured and subsumed by the proposed rear additions; however, the gabled form and north and eastern facades will remain legible as viewed from Lavender Bay.


Having considered all of the listed matters, it is concluded that the proposal is correctly characterised as new building with substantial retention of, and alterations and additions to, the existing structure. While existing building fabric will be substantially retained, the development will add significantly to the floor area and enlarge the building envelope. While the existing gabled building will remain legible, it will be transformed in character to a larger and more contemporary dwelling (Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Substantially retained dwelling behind will be legible from Lavender Bay

STATUTORY CONTROLS NSLEP 2013

• Zoning – R3 Medium Density Residential • Subdivision lot size – 230m2 • Height of building – 8.5m • FSR – None specified • Item of Heritage – Yes - (seawall at No’s. 3, 5, 7, 9, 23A & 23B (I0314)) • In Vicinity of Item of Heritage – Yes (stone retaining wall on Bay View Street) • Conservation Area – No • Foreshore Area / Foreshore Building Line – Yes

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 SEPP (BASIX) 2004 SEPP No. 55 – Contaminated Lands SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Local Development POLICY CONTROLS NSDCP 2013


DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY The site is located on the eastern side of Bay View Street and is in the shape of an irregular rectangle. The site has a primary frontage to Bay View Street of 11.9m and rear boundary of 11m to Lavender Bay. The northern and southern boundaries are 65.1m and 74m in length, respectively, and the site area is 959m2. The site falls steeply some 17m to the foreshore. The site is occupied by a 2-storey brick and stone building with rear balcony and a detached brick double garage adjacent the street (Figures 3 & 4). Concrete paths and stairs provide access along the southern side boundary, via stepped garden terraces, to the rear of the site which contains a pool adjoining Lavender Bay (Figures 5 to 8).

Figure 3 – Site from Bay View Street Figure 4 – Rear of site

Figure 5 – Access via side stairway Figure 6 – Garden terrace

Figure 7 – Rear garden Figure 8 – Foreshore frontage


The surrounding area is characterised by multi-storey residential buildings, including detached dwellings, multi-unit housing, and residential flat buildings. Properties on Bay View Street generally contain garages at street level (Figure 9) with buildings stepping up the western (high) side of the street and down to the foreshore on the subject (low) side of the street.

Figure 9 – Bay View Street streetscape characterised by garages

The subject and adjoining foreshore properties typically accommodate multi-level buildings, terraced gardens and balcony patios, and swimming pool and associated structures in the foreshore area (Figures 10 & 11)

Figure 10 – Residential flat buildings to the south Figure 11 – Foreshore housing to the north

RELEVANT HISTORY The development application was lodged on 3/7/14 and in its original form was Integrated Development under section 89 of the Water Management Act by virtue of the works to the sea wall. Works to the sea wall have since been deleted thereby rendering the site a local development. On 22/10/14, a meeting was held with applicant to discuss progress with view and shadow analyses and potential design amendments, including reduction in height of the garage, revised landscape design, and reduction in size of the rear balcony on level 5. Amended information was received on 30/10/14 including landscape plans with amended species within the southern setback, view impact analysis, reduction in size of the deck on level 5, and 250mm reduction in the height of the garage.


On 20/2/15 the applicant met with Council to clarify issues in relation to site coverage, with additional clarifications submitted by the applicant on 5/3/15. REFERRALS Ausgrid The application was referred to Ausgrid in relation to a substation kiosk located on Bay View Street adjacent to the site. Ausgrid has not raised any objections and provided conditions of any consent. Building The proposal would have to comply with the Building Code of Australia. Conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance. Engineer The proposal was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who did not raise any objections to the proposal on engineering grounds, subject to conditions including in relation to stormwater management and geotechnical stability during works. Heritage The application was referred to Council’s Conservation Planner as the site contains a heritage-listed seawall and stone retaining wall on the western side of Bay View Street opposite the site. Clarification on the proposed restoration works to the seawall and crane fixture adjacent the wall; however, these works have since been deleted from the scope of works. No objections to the development are raised on heritage grounds, subject to conditions to protect the seawall from damage during the construction works. Landscaping The application was referred to Council’s Landscape Development Officer who has reviewed the submitted Arborists Report and revised landscape plans. No objections have been raised on landscape grounds, subject to conditions, noting in particular:

• There are 2 x semi-mature Crepe Myrtle street trees growing either side of the existing driveway which are not anticipated to be threatened by the proposed works. However, a financial bond is recommended to ensure the appointed builder is prudent in relation to site works.

• A number of trees on the property that have been identified in the Arborists Report including size, condition and horticultural significance. The observations and recommendations contained within the report are generally agreed with. Most vegetation is relatively insignificant; however, there is a mature Frangipani Tree growing in the garden area adjacent the waterfront that is proposed to be transplanted. The tree is about 4 metres tall, a good specimen and suitable to be transplanted. The report indicates and supports the removal of all vegetation other than the Frangipani which is to be relocated.


• The Landscape Plan has provided a number of planter boxes and soft landscaping over concrete, with the natural soil area predominately along the waterfront. The design is formal in many aspects and more informal in others and has incorporated some passive recreational areas in what is well thought out scheme. The plant selection is appropriate for both its geographical location close to the sea as well as having consideration for surrounding properties, their potential view loss and the breaking up and softening of the bulk and scale of the building itself. Furthermore the provision of Ficus primula (Creeping Fig) to soften the visual appearance of a large concrete wall facing south is appropriate. This species does not need significant amount of natural light to grow successfully and is suited for its intended role.

SUBMISSIONS The owners of adjoining properties and the Lavender Bay Precinct were notified of the proposed development between 18 July and 18 August 2014 in accordance with section A4 of NSDCP 2013. The notification resulted in seven (7) submissions. Basis of Submissions

• Rear setbacks do not conform to pattern and may give rise to view impacts • View loss including Opera House, Bridge, boats, and due to roof plantings • Privacy impacts from rooftop terrace, screening will have view impacts • Roof attic exceeds 50% of floor below • Misleading/inaccurate drawings of adjoining building (No.5 Bay View St) • Appropriateness of landscaping to growing conditions in southern setback • Industrial style southern side wall; suggest a “living/green” wall • View impacts from unnecessary garage height (RL22.85) and landscaping which should

not grow beyond 5m high • Materially breaches controls: height limit, site coverage, landscaped areas • Rooftop balconies contravene privacy provisions, including size, setbacks; green roof on

level 3 will overlook my living room; decks will be source of noise • Shadow impacts on northern windows, including kitchen and bedrooms due to rear

building alignment and landscaping; trees should be removed • Obstruction of views by balconies and eastern setback, tall tree plantings along southern

boundary & 1.8m high boundary fence • Easterly elongation of level 2 is a key driver of excessive site coverage • Excavation poses vibration, subsidence, asbestos & contaminants’ risks • Council should require dedication to provide for foreshore access to the public, in line

with State and local government commitments to a walkway from Luna Park to Berry’s Bay, similar to dedication obtained at 33 East Crescent Street

• High wall will affect the sunshine in my unit and courtyard • Side wall will create ugly outlook


• Increase in garage height will block views of Opera House • Increase in height of the house will reduce harbour views

CONSIDERATION The relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, are assessed under the following headings: NORTH SYDNEY LEP 2013 1. Permissibility within the zone The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of the North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 (NSLEP 2013). Development for the purposes of a dwelling house is permissible with the consent of Council. Demolition is permissible with consent pursuant to clause 2.7 of the LEP. 2. Residential Zone Objectives Clauses 2.3 and the Land Use Table contained in NSLEP 2013 provide for the particular objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone. It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the provisions as it will maintain a high level of residential amenity within a medium density environment and provide a suitable visual transition between higher density housing to the south and medium density housing, as discussed in this report. 3. LEP Compliance table The application has been assessed against the relevant principal development standards contained in Part 4 of NSLEP 2013 as indicated in the following compliance table. More detailed comments with regard to the major issues are provided later in this report.

STATUTORY CONTROL – North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013 Site Area – 959m² Existing Proposed Control Complies R3 Medium Density Residential Minimum Lot Size (cl.4.1) 959m² No change 230m² Yes Building Height (cl.4.3(2)) (max)

8.5m

• Garage parapet (front) 3.4m 4m Yes • Garage parapet (rear) 5m 6.2m Yes • Main roof ridge 10.4m 10.4m

No * • Rear gable 10m 10.8m

• Rear roof 8.3m 8.3 (roof)

9.2m (deck balustrade) • Levels 1 & 2 3.8m Yes

* Clause 4.6 variation submitted (refer Attachment 3)


4. Building Heights The maximum building height for the site is 8.5m pursuant to clause 4.3 of NSLEP 2013. The existing and proposed building heights do not comply with the development standard. The proposed non-compliance of up to 10.8m (27%) is attributable to the rear roof gable, and 9.2m (8.2%) at the balcony balustrade on level 5, as shown in Figure 12 below.

Figure 12 – Location of proposed non-compliant building height

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to vary the development standard, pursuant to clause 4.6 of NSLEP 2013. The proposed variation has been assessed against the requirements of clause 4.6 and the objectives of the control, as discussed below:

(a) to promote development that conforms to and reflects natural landforms, by stepping development on sloping land to follow the natural gradient. The building will step down the site generally following the fall of the land.

(b) to promote the retention and, if appropriate, sharing of existing views. On balance,

the view impacts are assessed to be reasonable and satisfactory, as discussed in the Views section of the DCP Compliance Table in this report. The proposed impacts are largely attributable to the height-compliant garage structure, rather than the rear roof ridge.

(c) to maintain solar access to existing dwellings, public reserves and streets, and to

promote solar access for future development. The proposed building height non-compliances do not result in any material shadow impacts, as discussed in the Solar Access section in the DCP Compliance Table.


(d) to maintain privacy for residents of existing dwellings and to promote privacy for residents of new buildings. The privacy impacts of the height non-compliance on level 5 are considered acceptable subject to deletion of the eastern (outermost) balcony (via condition). Further discussion is provided in the Privacy section in the DCP Compliance Table.

(e) to ensure compatibility between development, particularly at zone boundaries. The

development is lesser in height to the adjoining apartment complex in the R4 High Density Residential zone, and comparable to adjoining multi-level housing along the foreshore.

(f) to encourage an appropriate scale and density of development that is in accordance

with, and promotes the character of, an area. The proposed height variations have a neutral impact on the scale and density of the area. The proposal will replace 4 x 1-bedroom accommodation with a 5-bedroom dwelling and the built form will be similar in physical scale and character to nearby contemporary residential buildings.

In consideration of the above, it is concluded that the proposed development will not have any material adverse impacts on neighbouring properties arising from the proposed Building Height. The objectives of the Building Height control are achieved notwithstanding the non-compliance. In this regard, strict compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The variation to clause 4.3 of NSLEP 2013 is supported in this case. 5. Preservation of trees or vegetation The landscape amenity of the site will be preserved in accordance with clause 5.9 of NSLEP 2013, by way of replacement and transplanted vegetation, as discussed in the Landscape Referral section in this report.

6. Heritage conservation The development is satisfactory in relation to the heritage conservation provisions in clause 5.10 of NSLEP 2013, as discussed in the Heritage Referral section in this report. Conditions are recommended to ensure protection of the seawall and for re-use of sandstone. 7. Limited Development on Foreshore Area The proposed works in the Foreshore Area, comprising fencing, decking and landscaped outdoor recreation facilities associated with the existing pool, are permissible pursuant to clause 6.9(2) of NSLEP 2013. The works satisfy the objectives of the provision and the relevant criteria in clause 6.9(3) as follows:

(a) the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located. The development will contribute the zone objectives by maintaining a high level of residential amenity in a medium density environment.

(b) the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent

foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Foreshore Area will appear as a landscaped private back garden with low-scale/ancillary structures associated with the existing swimming pool, similar to existing and adjoining properties.


(c) the development will not cause environmental harm such as (i) pollution or siltation of the waterway (ii) an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, fauna and flora habitats (iii) an adverse effect on drainage patterns. All works will be located on the foreshore, with no works proposed to the seawall. Conditions are recommended for the protection of the seawall and sediment control during construction.

(d) the development will not cause congestion or generate conflict between people

using open space areas or the waterway. There is no existing public open space or any public access to the site from Lavender Bay, and none is proposed.

(e) opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the

waterway will not be compromised. The limited and low scale nature of the works proposed in the Foreshore Area is such that they will not compromise any opportunities to provide public foreshore access that may arise in the future.

(f) any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or

aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained. No works are proposed to the heritage seawall; conditions are recommended to ensure its protection during construction.

(g) in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building

wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore. The alterations and additions, in particular, the basement level 1, will be located behind the Foreshore Building Line and not within the Foreshore Area. The alterations to the dwelling will be integrated into and follow the topography of the site, and not adversely impact on the Harbour aesthetic.

(h) sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been

considered. The dwelling will be set back more than 15m from the foreshore, with the finished floor level of basement level 1 some 2m above the top of the seawall.

8. Earthworks Earthworks are permissible with consent, pursuant to clause 6.10 of the LEP. The development has been assessed in relation to the objectives and relevant provisions in clause 6.10(1) & (2) and found to be satisfactory. In particular:

(a) The likely disruption of, or any detrimental effects on: (i) drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality of the development - The underlying sandstone bedrock is identified in the submitted geotechnical report as having low permeability with limited groundwater flows. Impacts on soil drainage and stability are considered to be manageable, on the advice of Council’s Development Engineer and subject to geotechnical and stormwater management conditions.


(ii) natural features of, and vegetation on, the site and adjoining land - The development will result in the demolition of rock walls at the rear of the property. The retaining wall is not considered to be of any significant quality and is largely obscured by vegetation, as discussed in the Excavation section in the DCP Compliance Table. The wall will be replaced by a green roof and landscaped patio, which is considered reasonable given the steep topography and built form context surrounding the site.

(b) The effect of the development on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land -

The earthworks are compatible with the existing and likely future use of the land for medium density residential use.

(c) The quality of the fill or the soil to be excavated, or both - Excavated material is

unlikely to be contaminated given the sandstone foundations and residential history of the site.

(d) The effect of the development on the existing and likely amenity of adjoining

properties - The majority of earthworks will be set back at least 1m from the side boundaries. The structural integrity and amenity of adjoining properties can be reasonably protected via conditions of consent.

(e) The source of any fill material and the destination of any excavated material – The

quality and treatment of excavated materials can be dealt with via standard conditions. (f) The likelihood of disturbing Aboriginal objects or relics – Council is not aware of

any Aboriginal objects or relics within or in the vicinity of the site. The site is regarded as being in a highly disturbed state.

(g) The proximity to, and potential for adverse impacts on, any waterway, drinking

water catchment or environmentally sensitive area – Conditions are recommended by Council’s Development Engineer to ensure adequate site drainage and sediment control during works.

(h) Any appropriate measures proposed to avoid, minimise or mitigate the impacts of

the development – Conditions are recommended to minimise potential impacts from the proposed earthworks.

9. Vehicle access Development for the purpose of a driveway within a road reserve associated with a permissible use in an adjoining zone may be carried out with consent, pursuant to clause 6.13 of the LEP. Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions to ensure the design and construction satisfy Council’s criteria. SEPP (AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING) 2009 The Affordable Rental Housing SEPP seeks to facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and to employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating such loss.


Part 3 Clause 49 of the SEPP provides for the retention of existing affordable rental housing and applies to low-rental residential buildings in operation in the Sydney Region as at 28 January 2000. A “low rental building” is defined as follows in the SEPP:

“a dwelling that (at any time in the 24 month period prior to the lodgement of a development application to which this Part applies) was let at a rental not exceeding the median rental level for that time (as specified in the Rent and Sales Report) in relation to a dwelling of the same type, having the same number of bedrooms and located in the same local government area“

It cannot be said with any certainty that the site contained a “low rental building” as at 28 January 2000. Council’s file note/memo dated 1 March 1996 states that Council had been informed on 11 July 1988 that the property is no longer used as a “boarding house”. There is an absence of readily available rental history for the building dating to January 2000. Notwithstanding the above, there is evidence that one of the 4 units within the subject building was on the rental market for 6 months within the 2-year period prior to lodgement of the DA on 3/7/14. Specifically, a 1-bedroom unit (Flat 4) occupying part of the lower floor was available for rent at $420/week between July and December 2012, which is $30 below the threshold of $450/week in the relevant rent and sales report published by Housing NSW in February 2013. The applicant has advised that the property was purchased in December 2012 and it has not been rented out since then. Part 3 of the SEPP is applied to the application for completeness, however, with abundant caution, given the lack of evidence or certainty that the site contains affordable rental housing, as defined. The provisions under clause 50(2), to the extent that they are relevant, are considered below. (a) Whether there is likely to be a reduction in affordable housing. The reduction in

affordable rental housing would be up to 4 flats. The proposal will not materially reduce the amount of affordable housing as the property (Flat 4) has not been rented since December 2012.

(b) Whether there is available sufficient comparable accommodation to satisfy the demand for such accommodation. According to the published data of the Real Estate Institute of NSW, the average vacancy rate in private rental accommodation in Sydney for the 3 months immediately preceding the date of lodgement of the DA (on 3/7/14) was 1.8 to 2.0%. As the vacancy rate is less than 3% comparable accommodation is taken not to be sufficiently available.

(c) Whether the development is likely to cause adverse social and economic effects on the general community. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse social or economic effects as low rental units have not been available since December 2012 and the site has not been occupied since that time.

(d) Whether adequate arrangements have been made to assist the residents of the building likely to be displaced to find alternative comparable accommodation. The property is currently vacant and no residents will be displaced as a result of the development.


(e) The extent to which the development contributes to any cumulative loss of affordable housing in the local government area. Any affordable housing that may have existed prior to 28 January 2000 is considered to be lost due to attrition. The development will not result in any significant cumulative loss of affordable housing in the LGA as the 1-bedroom flat which was rented out for less than the relevant threshold in 2012 has not been available for lease for over 2 years.

(f) The structural soundness of the building, the extent to which the building complies with any relevant fire safety requirements and the estimated cost of carrying out work necessary to ensure structural soundness and compliance with fire safety requirements. There is insufficient information available to address this issue as the proposal seeks to improve the building and ensure compliance with the current standards (including any relevant fire safety requirements) for the purpose of a dwelling house.

(g) Whether the imposition of a condition requiring the payment of a monetary contribution for the purposes of affordable housing would adequately mitigate the reduction of affordable housing resulting from the development. Payment of a monetary contribution towards the cost of providing affordable housing is not reasonable or necessary in this case, given the lack of certainty as to the existence of “low rental housing” as defined, with up to one single 1-bedroom flat only being potentially within the definition, and the lack of such accommodation being available since December 2012.

(h) The financial viability of the continued use of the boarding house. Any pre-existing use of the site for the purpose of a “boarding house” is taken to be discontinued as at 11 July 1988 as noted in Council file memo.

On the balance of the above, the development is considered to be satisfactory in relation to the provisions of the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, to the extent that it applies and in relation to the relevant provisions. SEPP 55 and Contaminated Land Management Issues The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the likelihood that the site has previously been contaminated and to address the methods necessary to remediate the site. Given the residential history of the site, there is unlikely to be any issues of soil contamination that would require remediation. SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The site is in the W7 Scenic Waters Casual Use zone within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and is subject to the provisions of the Policy which seeks to maintain, protect and enhance the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways. It is considered the proposed development is consistent with the objectives contained in the instrument in that the bulk and scale of the development is appropriate to the location, and views to and from the water will be maintained such that the scenic qualities of the area will be protected, having regard to the following relevant matters for consideration:


SREP matters for consideration Comment Cl.21 – Biodiversity, ecology and environment protection

The development will have a neutral impact. No works are proposed to the seawall.

Cl.22 – Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

Public access is not currently available and not currently identified as a link in Council’s current policies.

Cl.23 – Maintenance of working harbour Existing residential use will be maintained. Clause 24 – Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

The development will not cause any conflict between uses in the waterways.

Cl.25 – Foreshore and waterways scenic quality

The bulk and scale of the development is appropriate to the land on which it is to be erected, in particular, the size and topography of the lot, setback from the foreshore, scale of adjoining development, and the existing and future desired residential character of the area (refer to Figures 1 & 2).

Cl.26 – Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

The development will fit into the built form landscape on the foreshore and will not compromise any public views of the harbour.

Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP 2005 The proposed development generally satisfies the performance criteria for the Terrestrial Ecological Community, Urban Development with Scattered Trees, as identified in the DCP, relevantly:

DCP matters for consideration Comment Section 5.3 – Siting of building and structures

The building siting and orientation will be similar to existing and adjoining buildings. It will step down the cliff face, be set back from the foreshore, and address the Harbour.

Section 5.4 – Built form The bulk and scale of the development will be comparable to surrounding development which includes larger contemporary-style buildings of similar materials and colour palette.

Section 5.6 – Planting The landscape design will soften the built form and species selection appropriate for the harbourside environment, as assessed by Council’s Landscape Development Officer.

Section 5.13 – Swimming pools The materials and landscape selection will complement the existing swimming pool and not detract from the seawall.

North Sydney DCP 2013 The proposal is generally consistent with section B1 of the DCP relating to residential developments and section C9 & C9.6 being the Character Statement for the McMahons Point Neighbourhood within the Lavender Bay Planning Area.

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments B1.2 Social Amenity Population mix Maintaining residential accommodation

Yes The dwelling will maintain the existing housing diversity in the McMahons Point Neighbourhood, in particular, a dwelling that will accommodate a large household and adaptable amenities for ageing in place.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Affordable housing Yes The site does not currently provide for affordable housing and

has not provided for such in the recent past, as discussed in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) section in this report. The development will not result in the displacement of any vulnerable persons.

B1.3 Environmental Criteria Topography No The development will involve excavations within 1m of

boundary; however, in most part localised in the area of the garage structure. Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions to ensure protection of the structural integrity of adjoining properties. The excavated level 2 will be predominantly below the existing ground line and provided with the green roof at rear, which will adequately maintain a landscaped terrace character adjacent to the foreshore. The building will step down the site so that the natural topography and landform overall will be legible.

Properties with a foreshore frontage

Yes The development generally satisfies the foreshore provisions, in particular: • The existing seawall will be maintained, with proposed

works in the Foreshore Area minimised and generally associated with poolside decking and landscaping;

• The building will step down the site in line with the topography and set back and above the foreshore area; and

• Neutral materials and colours will be used, and the built form softened by substantial soft plantings, including a fully landscaped roof terrace.

The form and scale of development will fit in to the existing foreshore environment, in keeping with the scenic quality of the foreshore, and as discussed in the SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) section in this report.

Views Yes Views from public places Views to Lavender Bay from public lookouts as identified in the Character Statement (CS9.6.1 P6) will not be obscured by the development. Slot views from Bay View Street will be impacted due to the proposed garage extension. A condition is recommended for a visually permeable front door/gate and window to the east garage elevation to be installed in order to maintain an existing slot view of the Harbour currently obtained from Bay View Street and along the southern side boundary of the site.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Views (continued)

Yes View sharing The following view analysis utilises the planning principles adopted by the NSW Land & Environment court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 and the view loss standards applicable under NSDCP 2013. The assessment is informed by view diagrams prepared by the applicant (Attachment 4) with the assistance of a registered surveyor and surveyed height poles, and Council officer’s visits to submitters’ properties. The analysis is of views from dwellings that are potentially most impacted by the development, being: • No’s. 2, 8 & 10 Bay View Street • Units 4, 6 & 9 at No.1 Bay View Street; and • Units 2, 4 & 6 at No.5 Bay View Street (Figure 13).

Figure 13 –Adjoining properties with Harbour views across the subject site

It is noted that the parapet height of the garage has been reduced by 250mm since the preparation

of the montages; therefore, the proposed view impact would be marginally lesser than that depicted in the view diagrams in relation to the garage structure.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Identification of views and extent of impacts No.2 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Lavender

Bay and Milsons Point (Figure 14).

Figure 14 – Existing view from No.2 Bay View Street (camera level RL24.2) & excerpt of

photomontage from view analysis by BBC Consulting dated 30/10/15

(ii) From where are the views obtained: A draft proposal has been received by and discussed with Council at a pre-lodgement meeting on 18/7/14 for redevelopment of No.2 Bay View Street, involving replacement of the existing building with a new dwelling. The concept new dwelling would accommodate an open plan living/dining room with balcony on the first floor at RL26.75 and a ground floor informal living room and study adjoined by a lawn terrace at RL23.5, which would afford harbour views across the subject site.

(iii) Extent of impact: The garage structure will result in the loss of a portion of Lavender Bay; however,

allow for part of the contextual water body below the Bridge to be retained. The view impacts depicted in Figure 14 above would be further reduced taking into consideration the following:

• The parapet height shown in the montage has since been reduced in the amended design by 250mm; and

• The views shown above are located at camera level RL24.2, being a standing position on the lawn at the existing front wall. The eye level of a person standing on the front lawn under the pre-lodgement scheme would be approximately RL25.1 (measured 1.6m above proposed finished floor/lawn level RL23.5), which is at a higher eye level than the camera height used for the purpose of the montage.

While the foreground views of the water will be significantly reduced as viewed from the lower level informal lounge, study and associated lawn, the proposal would allow for full retention of the Opera House, Bridge and Sydney Harbour composition as viewed from the first floor main living areas

at approximate eye level of RL28.35 (being 1.6m above finished RL26.75), well above the camera views as shown in the montages.

In summary, iconic views from primary living areas will be substantially retained, however, with some loss of foreground water views from secondary living areas, such that the overall impact is assessed to be moderate.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments No.8 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, Lavender

Bay and Milsons Point (Figure 15).

Figure 15 – Existing view at front wall of 8 Bay View St (camera RL22.5 & 22.56) & excerpt of


(ii) From where are the views obtained: The approved development DA311/13, as amended and currently under construction, will have a main open plan living/dining room with outdoor deck on the ground floor at RL22.65 with adjoining front garden area at RL22.5, and a first floor main bedroom and balcony at RL25.95, with harbour views across the subject site.

(iii) Extent of impact: The garage will result in the loss of views to the Opera House as viewed from the

front wall, and foreground water views that are partially obscured by street trees. The view impacts depicted in Figure 15 above would be further reduced taking into consideration the following: • The parapet height shown in the montage has since been reduced in the amended design by 250mm;

and • The views shown above are located at camera level RL22.5 & RL22.56 standing at the front wall. The

eye level of a person standing in the front lawn and living room and outdoor deck of the approved scheme would be approximately RL24.25 and RL24.1 , respectively (measured 1.6m above approved finished floor/lawn levels), which is at a higher eye level than the camera height used for the purpose of the montages.

The view at camera level RL23.9 as taken from the existing patio would more accurately reflect the impacts as viewed from the main living areas of the approved development (Figure 16).


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments

Figure 16 – Existing view from front patio of No.8 Bay View Street (camera RL23.9) & excerpt of


The proposal would allow for the retention of views to the Opera House and Bridge, with some erosion of foreground water views. The existing panorama will be substantially retained such that the overall impact is considered to be minor (to moderate). No.10 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, city skyline,

Lavender Bay and Milsons Point (Figure 17).

Figure 17 – Existing view 6m from front wall of No.10 Bay View St (camera RL23.4) & excerpt of


(ii) From where are the views obtained: The approved development DA409/13, currently under construction, will have a main open plan living/dining room with outdoor deck on the ground floor at RL22.1 and front deck at RL20.97, and a first floor main bedroom and balcony at RL25.1, with harbour views across the subject site. The approximate eye level RL23.7 of the primary living areas (measured 1.6m above approved living room floor level) would be comparable to the camera height of RL23.4.

(iii) Extent of impact: The garage will result in the loss of views to the southernmost fragment of water.

The view impacts depicted in Figure 17 would be further reduced taking into consideration that the parapet height shown in the montage has since been reduced in the amended design by 250mm. The development will not materially erode the existing continuous panorama from Milsons Point to the city skyline with the central water body substantially retained. The view impacts are assessed to be negligible.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Unit 4, No.1 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The apartment has views of Lavender Bay and Milsons Point

to the northeast (Figure 18), and iconic Harbour views to the east.

Figure 18 – Existing & proposed side view from balcony & living room of unit 4, 1 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: Views of Lavender Bay are obtained from the living room and balcony on level 2 of the building across the northern side boundary (Figure 18 above). However, primary and iconic views of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House and Sydney Harbour are to the east as viewed from the primary open plan living areas and balcony (Figure 19).

Figure 19 – Primary view from open plan living area & balcony

(iii) Extent of impact: The development will result in minimal impacts on views of Lavender Bay from the secondary side windows of the unit. Primary views of iconic structures, continuous district and harbour views to the east will be maintained in their entirety. The view impacts are assessed to be negligible.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Unit 6, No.1 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The apartment has views of Lavender Bay and Milsons Point

to the northeast (Figures 20 & 21), and iconic Harbour views to the east.

Figure 20 – Existing & proposed views from the kitchen window of unit 6, 1 Bay View St

Figure 21 – Existing & proposed views from northern end of balcony of unit 6, 1 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: Views of Lavender Bay and Milsons Point are obtained from the living room and northern end of the balcony on level 3 of the building across the northern side boundary. However, primary and iconic views of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House and Sydney Harbour are to the east as viewed from the open plan living areas and balcony (Figure 22).



Figure 22 – Primary view from open plan living area & balcony of unit 6

(iii) Extent of impact: The development will result in minimal impacts on views of Lavender Bay and Milsons Point from the side window which provides secondary outlook across a side boundary for a kitchen which has access to Harbour views via the living room and through the balcony doors. Primary views of iconic structures, continuous district and harbour views to the east will be maintained in their entirety. The view impacts are assessed to be negligible.

Unit 9, No.1 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are slot views of Lavender Bay and Milsons Point

(Figure 23).

Figure 23 – Existing & proposed views from the balcony of unit 6, 1 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: The views are obtained from the courtyard of Unit 9 along and across the side boundary with the site.

(iii) Extent of impact: The existing slot views will remain generally intact, and the view impacts are

assessed to be negligible.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Unit 2, No.5 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, city

skyline, Lavender Bay and Milsons Point (Figures 24 to 26).

Figure 24 – Existing & proposed views at the living room windows of unit 2, 5 Bay View St

Figure 25 – Existing & proposed views from the living room of unit 2, 5 Bay View St



Figure 26 – Existing & proposed views from the dining room of unit 2, 5 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: Primary views are obtained from the living room and balcony of unit 2 across the rear and side boundary. Views from the dining room are at an acute angle across the side and rear boundaries of the subject site.

(iii) Extent of impact: While there will be loss of part of the slot view from the dining room window, it is

noted that there is a lower expectation of view amenity from such a location, being a side window set well within the side setback and relying entirely on the side and rear boundaries of the subject site for view access. The primary skyline, district and iconic harbour views from the main living area through full height corner windows and a balcony will be maintained such that the overall impact on the view amenity of the unit is assessed to be negligible.

Unit 4, No.5 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge, Opera House, city

skyline glimpses, Lavender Bay and Milsons Point (Figure 27).

Figure 27 – Existing & proposed views from the front porch of unit 4, 5 Bay View St



Figure 27 – Existing & proposed views from the bedroom of unit 4, 5 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: Primary views are obtained from the living room, front balcony and bedroom of unit 4.

(iii) Extent of impact: While there will be loss of a fragment of the view of Lavender Bay in the

foreground, this will be localised at the southernmost extremity of an otherwise continuous and intact view of the Harbour and its icons (Figure 28). The overall view amenity of the primary living area will be preserved and as such the impact on unit 4 is assessed to be minor.

Figure 28 – Primary view from unit living room


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Unit 6, No.5 Bay View Street (i) Assessment of views to be affected: The views are of the Harbour Bridge and Opera House, city

skyline glimpses, Lavender Bay and Milsons Point (Figure 29).

Figure 29 – Existing & proposed views from the living room of unit 6, 5 Bay View St

(ii) From where are the views obtained: Primary views are obtained from the rear (east-facing) windows of the living room. Secondary views are obtained at an acute angle from a side window, along the side boundary of the site. It is noted that unit 6 is located adjacent Bay View Street, well set back from the foreshore.

(iii) Extent of impact: The extension of the main gable ridge will result in erosion of a part of the arch, road deck and southern pylons of the Bridge. However, the affected parts of the Bridge view are currently compromised by existing structures, being the rear roof ridge and chimneys of the subject building. The works will, however, not materially diminish the existing panorama, with the main arch, road deck, northern pylons, Opera House, and Sydney Harbour, intact as viewed from the main rear window. The overall view impacts on the unit are assessed to be minor.



Reasonableness of proposal that is causing impact

Overall, the view impacts arising from the development are considered to be reasonable, having regard for the following: • The proposed garage structure complies with the height limit and its height has been minimised to the

extent necessary to accommodate the car lift mechanism; • The proposed extension of the main roof ridge is generally limited to the extent of the existing rear

building line at the upper floor level, and amounts to an 800mm increase compared to the existing rear gable ridge height;

• The overall impact on surrounding development will allow for equitable view sharing. Of the 9 dwellings identified to be potentially most affected by the proposed development, five (5) are assessed to have negligible impacts, two (2) will have minor impacts, one (1) with minor to moderate impacts, and one (No.2 Bay View Street), will be moderately affected;

• The property assessed to be most affected, being No.2 Bay View Street, will retain views from upper (primary) living spaces and could reasonably achieve improved view corridors with a high level of view amenity, having regard to the concept redevelopment proposal the subject of a pre-lodgement meeting with Council, which indicates that the primary living rooms on the upper level of the concept dwelling would have access to expansive Harbour views.

The overall envelope of the existing building on the subject site will be substantially retained at the upper level so as to allow for equitable view sharing. The lower additions will step down with the topography and not materially impact on secondary and/or side boundary views to the Harbour. View impacts arising from the development are assessed to be negligible to minor for 7 of the 9 properties the subject of the (worst case scenario) view analysis. On balance, the development is reasonable and will provide for equitable view sharing, in accordance with the objectives of section B1.3.6 of the DCP. Solar access Yes The development will result in additional shadows on the

south-adjoining apartment building at No.1 Bay View Street, as shown in the submitted shadow diagrams in Attachment 5. The following is an assessment of the shadow impacts of the proposal on the affected units, in accordance with the principles established by the Land and Environment Court in The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082.

Density The affected apartments are located on the lower levels of the adjoining building, below Bay View Street and along a side boundary within a medium to high density residential setting. Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level The windows on the lower levels of the apartment building at No.1 Bay View Street are currently subject to extensive overshadowing by the subject building and by virtue of the windows being within a side setback on a steeply sloping site, some below street level. Identification of additional shadows & extent of impacts Elevation shadow diagrams of the south-adjoining apartment complex at No.1 Bay View Street are shown in Figure 30 below.



Figure 30 – Elevation shadow diagrams showing impacts on No.1 Bay View Street

Apartments on level 4 of No.1 Bay View Street, particularly those centrally located on the façade, will be subject to additional shadowing. However, a large proportion of the glazing on these windows will maintain adequate solar access, in particular between 10am and 2pm. On balance, the additional shadow impact on these windows arising from the development is assessed to be minor.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Those windows on level 3 of No.1 Bay View Street that will be affected by additional shadows will generally maintain adequate solar access, during part of the morning and in the afternoon. It is also noted that the main living areas of the units on the eastern (foreshore) side of the building have a primary orientation toward the Harbour with daylight access obtained primarily through balcony doors rather than the side windows facing the subject site. This is the case for unit 6, for which the easternmost window looking across the side boundary to the site is associated with a kitchen which is part of an open plan living area with primary orientation to the Harbour through full height glass doors. The remaining affected windows of unit 6 are associated with bedrooms which are not main internal living areas for the purpose of shadow analysis. On balance, the additional shadow impacts on the northern windows on level 3 of the adjoining apartment building are assessed to be minor. The development will cast additional midwinter shadows on the windows and courtyard of Unit 9, No.1 Bay View Street, which is located on the lower levels of the building with a side courtyard area adjoining the subject site (Figures 31 to 33). Midwinter afternoon shadow impacts on unit 9 are shown in the “views from sun” diagrams further below in Figure 34 (and Attachment 5)

Figure 31 – Side courtyard & windows

Figure 32 – Location of unit 9 adjacent the side boundary

Figure 33 – Lower floor rumpus



Figure 34 –Midwinter afternoon “view from sun” diagrams – unit 9, 1 Bay View Street


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments The lower living room window and side courtyard of unit 9 receive partial sun approximately between midday and 2pm, and 1pm to 1.30/1.45pm, respectively, and any reductions in this limited duration of sun exposure would have a significant impact, relative or proportionate to the existing situation. However, unit 9 is a 2-level apartment for which the primary living areas are on the upper level of the unit wherein is located the main living areas comprising a formal living room adjoined by a small patio, dining area and kitchen. On balance, the impact arising from the development on the overall solar amenity of unit 9 is assessed to be moderate. Design The proposed development is considered reasonable in terms of shadow impacts, on the balance of the following considerations: • The affected windows are on the lower floors of the apartment building oriented to the side boundary

towards the site, for which the expectation of retaining existing sunlight access is less strong, particularly in a medium to high density built environment;

• The additional shadows on the courtyard of unit 9, 1 Bay View Street are primarily attributable to the roof over the new access stair which complies with the height limit;

• Those elements of the proposed building in breach of the height limit, in particular at the main roof ridge, do not give rise to any material shadow impacts; and

• The majority of units within the apartment building at No.1 Bay View Street, particularly those on the upper three levels and/or facing the Harbour, will maintain high levels of solar amenity.

Acoustic privacy Visual privacy

Yes Openings on northern side elevation Existing openings on the northern elevation will generally be retained. The privacy impacts will be reasonable given that the windows are vertical and narrow with restricted sightlines, and associated with bedrooms and a playroom which have a primary orientation to the rear (east). The skylights will not result in any material privacy impacts as they will not provide any direct near-distant sightlines to any dwellings and the windows are associated with a study/office with primary openings toward the rear (harbour).

Yes Southern elevation The development will reduce privacy impacts on the adjoining apartment building to the extent that the external access stair and deck will be internalised into the new dwelling. No new openings are proposed at the southern elevation, other than a skylight on the gable roof plane which is located above internal open/void areas.

No Decks & patios The development includes the provision of outdoor decks on levels 2, 3 & 5, as shown in Figure 35.



Figure 35 – Location of outdoor decks

Acoustic privacy Visual privacy (continued)

Yes Level 2 deck

The rear deck on level 2 will be the primary outdoor space to the main internal living room. The proposed location and level of the deck generally conform to the existing lower lawn/terrace level of the site. The deck will be located behind/below standard boundary fence height, have a primary outlook to the harbour, and be set back from the side boundaries so as to minimal overlooking impacts.

Yes Level 3 deck

The proposed deck on level 3 is in the nature of a non-trafficable landscaped roof. The “green roof” adjoins an internal void space.

No Level 5 deck

The development includes two outdoor decks on level 5, as shown in plan in Figure 36.

Figure 36 – Plan of two adjoining decks on level 5


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Acoustic privacy Visual privacy (continued)

No The inner/western deck immediately adjoining the study/office will have an area of some 21m2, which exceeds the maximum area of 18m2 in section B1.3.10 P8. The deck is nevertheless be supported in consideration of the following: • The deck will be wholly contained within the gable roof

form which effectively provides screening to the northern and southern side boundaries, thereby minimising any visual and noise impacts;

• The primary outlook of the deck will be eastward to the harbour;

• The 3m2 variation of the deck (excluding the eastern extension, discussed below) is relatively minor; and

• The use is associated with a study/office, rather than any primary living area.

The outer/easternmost deck on level 5 will be some 28m2 in

area, and is not supported for the following reasons: • The 10m2 (55%) variation of the outer deck above the

maximum deck size of 18m2 is significant, and when combined with the immediately adjoining inner/western deck would provide a total deck area of some 49m2, amounting to a total variation of some 31m2 (72%);

• The deck is completely open and elevated above adjoining dwellings, giving rise to noise impacts, in particular, affecting the north-adjoining property at No.5 Bay View Street (Figure 37);

• The total capacity of the deck is excessive and would allow for sizeable office parties that would result in disamenity to the residential neighbourhood.

A condition is recommended for the outer deck to be deleted.

Figure 37 – Elevated location of deck


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments B1.4 Quality Built Form Context Yes The additions are generally designed to fit into the steep

topography of the site. The adaptation of the existing building to a larger contemporary style building is consistent with surrounding foreshore development. The additions have been designed to maintain reasonable view sharing and privacy between properties, as discussed in this report and subject to conditions.

Subdivision pattern Yes No change is proposed to the existing lot size or orientation.

Streetscape Yes The proposed replacement of an existing garage adjoining Bay View Street will not materially change the existing streetscape which is dominated by parking and garage structures (Figures 38 & 39).

Figure 38 – Garages on eastern side of

Bay View Street

Figure 39 – Photomontage of new garage

The pedestrian entry to the garage will adequately break down the bulk and scale of the structure; however, a condition is recommended that the doorway and passage be visually permeable in order to preserve slot views to the Harbour.

Siting Yes Existing and characteristic building orientation, including a garage at Bay View Street, and a stepped building with primary orientation to the Harbour, will be maintained.

Setbacks Yes Front setback The zero front setback of the garage will be maintained as existing and similar to adjoining garages on the eastern/lower side of Bay View Street.

No Side setbacks The application of the side setback provisions to the subject sloping site is detailed in the table & Figure 40 below. The proposed non-compliances are attributable to the garage and part of level 4 of the dwelling.



Proposed side setbacks

Relevant height Min. side setback Northern

Com-plies Southern side

Com-plies

L.05 (garage) 2nd storey 1.5m 0m No 0m to 0.69m No

L05 3rd storey 2.5m 1.2m (eave)

Up to 5m (ridge) (existing)

Yes 4.1 to 5.3m (eave) 8.1 to 9m (ridge) Yes

L.04 (link) 1st storey 900mm n/a n/a 636mm to 1m No

L.03 & L.04 2nd storey 1.5m 1.2m (existing) Yes (no change)

1m to 2.1m No 3rd storey 2.5m 2.1m to 2.6m No

L.02 1st storey 900mm 1.1m Yes 3.1m Yes L.01 (basement) 1st storey 900mm 1.1m & 1.6m Yes 900mm Yes

Figure 40 – Number of storeys for purpose of calculating setbacks on sloping site

Setbacks (continued)

Garage (level 5)

The extension of the garage to the side boundaries is assessed to be satisfactory, on the balance of the following considerations: • The proposed garage is compatible in bulk and scale with

the existing streetscape which, on the subject (low) side of Bay View Street, is characterised by car parking structures that occupy a substantial or full extent of the street frontage (refer Figures 38 & 39 above);

• Adequate separations will be maintained; the northern garage setback will adjoin a side passage and garage on the neighbouring property, and the southern side of the garage will immediately adjoin a substation kiosk and driveway;

• The garage complies with the LEP Building Height control, and the southern setback will increase as the site falls away toward the foreshore, and will not give rise to unreasonable view or shadow impacts by reason of the proposed side setbacks.



Access link (level 4)

The proposed setback of the access link between the garage and dwelling will not result in any significant impacts by virtue of the proposed link being below grade and generally below the adjoining apartment building.

Levels 3 & 4

The proposed southern setback variations are primarily attributable to the internalisation of an existing concrete stairway and access decks within the side setback. The setback of the enclosing wall is supported having regard to the following: • The bulk and scale impacts will be adequately reduced by

virtue of the setback increasing as the site falls away toward the foreshore and the provision of substantial landscaping in the form of a “green wall”;

• The shadow impacts on unit 9 at No.1 Bay View Street, which is sunken below street level and with windows to the side setback, have been assessed as reasonable in the circumstances, and do not warrant deletion or significant amendments to the setback of the proposed southern wall (refer to Solar Access section); and

• The southern wall will not have any window openings and the internalisation of access within the site will improve privacy across the side boundary.

Setbacks (continued)

Yes Rear setback The proposed dwelling will be no closer than 23.3m from the shoreline, which complies with the minimum distance of 15m specified in the character statement. The rear setbacks follow the terraced topography of the site and generally in alignment with stepped buildings along the foreshore, in particular, No’s. 7 & 9 Bay View Street (Figure 41).



Figure 41 – Proposed rear alignment generally in keeping with adjoining rear alignments

Form, massing & scale Yes The dwelling will be consistent with, and not significantly larger than, surrounding buildings.

Built form character Yes The development reflects and reinforces built form character, predominantly made up of contemporary-style multi-storey residential buildings stepping down to the foreshore.

Dwelling entry Yes The pedestrian entry to the dwelling will be clearly legible at Bay View Street.

Roofs Yes The retention of the existing gable roof and provision of flat roofs at the rear and garage are consistent with existing and surrounding roof forms.

Colours & materials Yes The materials selection, including timber, sandstone, masonry and painted render will fit in with surrounding development.

B1.5 Quality Urban Environment High quality residential accommodation

Yes The dwelling will provide for high quality residential accommodation.

Lightwells & ventilation Yes Habitable rooms will have natural light and ventilation.

Safety and security Yes The site will have secure access with direct sightlines to the street.

Vehicular access & car parking

Yes The existing garage will be replaced with a new garage structure containing a twin car stacker, while generally maintaining existing driveway access and streetscape. Car parking is further discussed below in the Car Parking & Transport section in this DCP table.


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Site coverage No The development will result in a net increase of in site

coverage of 60m2 to 47.8%, being a variation of 12.8% above the maximum provision of 35% for a single dwelling, as detailed in the table below.

Existing Proposed Control Complies Site Coverage (lot size 750-

999m2) (cl.B1.5.5) (max) 41.5%

(398m2) 47.8% (458m2) * 35% (335.65m2) No

* Excludes basement level (L.01), in accordance with the definition of site coverage in NSLEP 2013

The proposed site coverage is nevertheless supported, despite the variation, in consideration of the unique circumstances of the site, in particular, the steep topography, existing site coverage and surrounding built context. A variation is appropriately allowed in this case as the proposal achieves the objectives of the provision despite the variation, discussed as follows: O1. To ensure that development is balanced and in

keeping with the optimum capacity of the site with no over development.

The numeric increase in site coverage of 6.3% above existing and across a site area of 959m2, is not so significant as to result in an overdevelopment of the site, particularly where the increase is associated with single storey parts of a single dwelling, as shown in Figure 42. The marginal increase in site coverage will not result in excessive built form or intensification of use of the site.

Figure 42 – Increase in site coverage generally associated with single storey parts of the dwelling


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Site coverage (continued)

O2. To ensure that development promotes the existing or desired future character of the neighbourhood.

The locality is characterised by a mix of housing types within an established built up area. Comparable foreshore properties adjoining to the north have high levels of site coverage, with up to a 24% variation from relevant site coverage provisions, in comparison to the lesser variation of 12.8% proposed on the subject site (Figure 43 below). The proposed increase in site coverage is associated with single-storey built form centrally located within and generally consistent with the fall of the land, thereby maintaining the characteristic built form, being minimal front setback to Bay View Street, with structures stepping down to a swimming pool by the Harbour. Importantly, the casual observer will not notice that the completed development is markedly different in outcome to other nearby developments.

Figure 43 – Proposed & existing site coverage (“SC”) at comparable adjoining waterfront lots


DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 Residential Development Complies Comments Site coverage (continued)

O3. To control site density. The proposed conversion of the existing building from 4 x 1-bedroom units to a 5-bedroom dwelling will not materially intensify site density. It is also noted that any redevelopment of the site for the purpose of multi-unit housing (being permissible within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone; however, constrained by topography) would allow for a site coverage of up to 50%. The proposed use as a dwelling house is permissible within the zone and the built form density is comparable to adjoining sites on the foreshore.

O4. To limit the building footprint so as to ensure adequate provision is made for landscaped area and private open space.

The development will provide adequate landscaped areas and private open space, maintain landscape character along the foreshore and satisfy the objectives of the landscape area provisions, as discussed below.

Landscape area No The development will result in a reduction in landscape area below the minimum requirement, as shown in the table below.

Existing Proposed Control Complies

Landscape Area (cl.B1.5.6) ~ 43.5% (419m2) 26.1% (250m2) 45% (431.55m2) (min) No

Un-built Upon Area (cl.B1.5.6)

~ 15% (143m2) 26.1% (251m

2) 20% (191.8m2) (max) Yes

The proposed non-compliance is largely attributable to the displacement of an existing mid-level lawn with a landscaped roof and outdoor deck. It is noted that the non-trafficable green roof (54m2) has not been included in landscape area as it is technical site coverage; however, will contribute to the landscape amenity of the development. The proposal is assessed to be satisfactory and capable of achieving the objectives of the landscape area provisions despite the variation, subject to additional soft plantings (via condition), discussed as follows:


DEVE

no rt h s y dne y co unci l re p o rt s...external deck new level 1 – rumpus/pool • excavation...

Documents