sesquicentenary celebration hunter's hill council...which met on 12 march 2012. book on mayors –...

Sesqu icen tenary Ce lebra t ion

Hunte r 's H i l l Counc i l

Ordinary Meeting

No. 4321 26 March 2012 at 7.30pm

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Prayer

Attendance, Apologies,

Declarations of Interests

A Confirmation of Minutes

Civic Ceremonies

Reports from Staff

D Development & Regulatory Control

F Corporate Governance

G Customer & Community Services

H General Manager

J Committees

K Correspondence

M General Business

HUNTER'S HILL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4321 - 26 March 2012

INDEX

A - CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4320 held 12 March 2012 (Close of Sesquicentenary Celebration)

1

D - DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

1. 11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill 1 2. 38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill 8 3. 96 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill 21 4. 22 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill 34 5. Delegated Authority 45 6. Legal Matters 47 7. Proposed Heritage Items & Exhibition of the Draft Lep 2012 48

F - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

1. Summary of Council Investment as at 29 February 2012 1 2. Quarterly Financial Reports as at 31 December 2011 3

G - CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. Storage Rental Henley Community Centre 1

H - GENERAL MANAGER

1. No Smoking Policy in Playgrounds & public Places 1 2. 1. NSROC Regional Priorities

2. NSROC Review 7

J - COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) Meeting Held 15 February 2012

1

K - CORRESPONDENCE

1. ALGWA NSW Branch Inc – Request for Donation to Moree Plains Shire Council

1

M - GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings - Various Committees of Council 1

A

Confirmation of

Minutes

A – Confirmation of Minutes

4321- 26 March 2012

Index

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4320 held 12 March 2012 (Close of Sesquicentenary Celebration)

1

Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann MAYOR

Barry Smith GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4320 - 12 March 2012 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4320 held on 12 March 2012. This is page

COMMENCEMENT

The meeting opened with prayer at 7.15pm.

IN ATTENDANCE

The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Councillor Richard Quinn, Councillors Peter Astridge, Murray Butt, Simon Frame, Ross Sheerin and Meredith Sheil.

ALSO PRESENT The General Manager Barry Smith, the Group Manager Development and Regulatory Control Steve Kourepis and the Group Manager Works and Services David Innes.

APOLOGIES

No apologies were received.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

49/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Astridge that the Minutes of Ordinary Meeting No.4319 held 27 February, 2012 be confirmed.

CIVIC CEREMONIES 1. CLOSURE OF SESQUICENTENARY CELEBRATORY YEAR. The official program began with the Breaking of the Flag by the 1st Boronia and 1st

Hunters Hill Scout Groups, followed by the National Anthem with music provided by Daniel Rojas and Ian Cox.

The Mayor presented a Mayoral Address to be read out to the people of Hunters Hill

on 12 March 2061 on the Bicentenary of the Council. A Time Capsule was buried with various persons placing the following items of

interest:

ITEMS PLACED IN CAPSULE BY

57th Hunters Hill Art Exhibition Catalogue 2011

State Transport Pass, 9ct gold, no longer used. Photo of his family, Message to his children, message to residents of Hunters Hill from his office

Anthony Roberts MP, State Member for Lane Cove

Signed Card by members of the New South Cabinet which met on 12 March 2012.

Book on Mayors – 1861-2012 Compiled by Former Mayor Ross Williams

CD of 1961 Gladesville Parade – Hunter’s Hill Council Current Citizen of the Year Mr. Ray Wilson

Coins of the year 2012

Copy of Illuminated Address on the Farewell from Council of Didier Joubert,

Donated by his Grandson Professor Peter Joubert who resides in Victoria aged 87 years.




Hard Drive information containing photos and 2011-1012 Celebration information

General Manager Barry Smith

Hunter’s Hill Council Event News

Hunters Hill Badge & Business Card

Hunter’s Hill Council Community Strategic Plan 2030

Hunter’s Hill Council News to Residents

Hunters Hill Music – Posters & CD of Geoffrey Chard AM (World Renowned Opera Singer)

Hunters Hill Public School (Primary) 2010 Annual School Report

Hunters Hill Rugby Club Team Shirt The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann

Hunters Hill Sesquicentenary XFaktor – Local Schools talent competition DVD

Hunters Hill Theatre – Sesquicentenary Play, Terror at Clarke’s Point of A Lot of Ham and a Leg of Lamb

Mrs Gai Shannon, Sesquicentenary Committee Member representing Hunters Hill Theatre

Hunters Hill Theatre Archive 1930-2012 CD – 2 Disk Set

Jubilee Waltz written by Thomas Stubbs while residing at The Priory especially for Hunters Hill. Updated Copy of

Kelly’s Bush 40th Anniversary Celebration program

Le Vesinet / Hunters Hill Friendship Exchange Committee – photos on hard drive

Letterhead & Business cards

List of Mayors & Councillors 1861 - 2012

List and Photos of 2008-1012 Councillors

Mayoral Address to the people of the Municipality of Hunters Hill to be read on opening of the Time Capsule on 14 March 2061.

Minutes of Meeting 4320

Moocooboola Festival Information

Newspaper articles & cuttings

Newspaper – The Weekly Times dated 7 March 2012

Newspaper – The Sydney Morning Herald dated 12 March 2012

Newspaper – The Northern District Times dated 14 March 2012

Personal Letter to the People of the Municipality to be read out on 14 March 2061.

The Member for North Sydney The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey, Federal Member of Parliament.

Personal Letter & photos to his Children The Hon. Anthony Roberts MP, State Member for Lane Cove.

Personal Letters from Members of the Community

Photo of how the Town Hall looks now

Pictorial History of Hunters Hill – Signed by Author

1st Hunters Hill Scout Group Scarf and Woggle – Placed by William Kalkanas - Cub

Scout - 1st Hunters Hill Scout Group.

1st Boronia Scout Group Scarf and Woggle – Placed by Philip Davidson -

Group Leader - 1st Boronia Scout Group

Seniors Week Activities Pamphlet

Sesquicentenary Celebration Calendar and Memorabilia

Sesquicentenary Celebrations of Australia – Hunters Hill – 1794-1938




Sesquicentenary Choir Words by Matthew Orlkovich “Where Waters Meet” Joubert Singers performed a capella for Sesquicentenary Celebrations and at closure. CD & folder with words.

Ms Elizabeth McGeorge of the Sesquicentenary Choir– Joubert Singers

Sesquicentenary Program – A Year to Remember Sponsor Northern District Times Newspaper

Sesquicentenary Street Banner

St. Joseph’s College Hunters Hill 2011 Magazine The Headmaster - Mr. Ross Tarlinton

Villa Maria Primary School Year Book 2011

SES Cap & Information

Assisted by the Hunters Hill State Emergency Service, the Young Citizen of the

Year William Anschau and Young Sportsperson of the Year Angus Lelievre lowered the capsule into the ground outside the Town Hall ahead of a bronze plaque commissioned for the occasion.

On returning to the Meeting, the Sesquicentenary Choir – the Joubert Singers (30

persons) performed a Rendition “Where the Waters Meet” written especially for the 150th celebration by Composer Matthew Orlovich and sung by the Sesquicentenary Choir (Joubert Singers). A copy of the words written by Ms Elizabeth McGeorge was provided to the Gallery.

A certificate of Service was presented to Mr. John Collins, a former Deputy Mayor

for his 46 years of loyal service as an Honorary Ranger for the Woolwich Baths. Council launched the 150th Celebration with a Piano Solo which was written

especially for Hunters Hill by Mr. Thomas Stubbs in 1838 while he resided at The Priory. The Gallery listened to Mr. Malcolm Glynn as he performed the piece entitled Australian Jubilee Waltz with the close of the celebrations.

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS (Pages B1 – B2) 1. SESQUICENTENARY CELEBRATIONS & SINKING OF TIME CAPSULE 50/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Quinn that the Minute be

received and noted.

REPORTS FROM STAFF

WORKS & SERVICES (Pages E1 – E5) 1. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – APPROVALS / REFUSALS 51/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted.

CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES (Page G1) 1. SENIORS WEEK 2012 52/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheil that the report be

received and noted.



GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H11) 1. ALGA NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT 53/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Frame that Clr Peter Astridge

attend the National General Assembly in Canberra from 17-20 June 2012. 2. SESQUICENTENARY CELEBRATION – 150 YEARS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

IN HUNTERS HILL 54/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that the report be received

and the sincere appreciation of the council to all those who helped make the Sesquicentenary celebration an amazing success be recorded in the Official Minutes of Council.

3. SECOND QUARTERLY REVIEW OF DELIVERY PROGRAM & OPERATING PLAN AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2011

55/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Butt, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. The Transitional Delivery Program reports be received and noted and any amendments adopted.

2. The risk management report be received and the amendments to the risk register noted.

3. A copy of the risk management report be forwarded to Metropool for

information and update on the progress of the continuing implementation of ERM at Council.

4. EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST – ‘THE PRIORY’ 56/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheil, seconded Clr Butt that:

1. Council adopt the ‘Expressions of Interest – The Priory – Hunter’s Hill Council” document as presented.

2. Council advertise and invite Expressions of Interest from

individuals/groups/organisations to take up a lease/s at The Priory.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J9) 1. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL – LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 8 FEBRUARY 2012 57/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheil that the minutes be

received and noted.

2. MINUTES OF THE SESQUICENTENARY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 15 FEBRUARY 2012

58/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. The minutes be received and that the congratulations of the Council to the Management, Staff and members of the Sesquicentenary Committee as well as the individual organisations across the Municipality on a very successful Sesquicentenary year, be recorded in the Minutes.



2. That the Minutes of the Sesquicentenary Committee Meeting held 15 February reflect that Councillor Astridge was present at the meeting.

3. MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MEETING HELD 21 FEBRUARY 2012 59/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Sheil that:

1. The report be received and noted.

2. The Council standard design for laybacks/vehicular crossings be amended to remove the “lip” where appropriate to improve bicycle access.

3. Council continue to monitor the parking in Bonnefin Road and review as

appropriate. 4. Council write to the STA requesting a review of the bus service to Meyers

Avenue. 5. ‘No Stopping’ signs be installed for approximately 15 metres on each side

of the Gladesville Road entrance to St. Joseph’s College and approximately 30 metres on the southern side of Gladesville Road from Rocher Avenue. The signs are to be installed by Taylor Constructions at its own cost.

CORRESPONDENCE (PRECIS) (Page K1) 1. RIDE TO SCHOOL PROGRAM 60/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Frame that the correspondence

be received and noted.

GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 61/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheerin that the report listing

the various Committees of Council be received and noted. 2. W.A. WINDEYER BOOK LAUNCH

The Mayor Councillor Hoopmann formally launched a book by Mr. Jim Windeyer on William A. Windeyer MBE, his Grandfather and a former Mayor and Alderman for 8 years, (1913 and then in 1917-24) A book signing and sales by the author followed the close of the meeting.

The Mayor invited the 200 guests present to enjoy a “Celebratory Glass” and light refreshments following the close of the meeting



TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 8.30pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4320 held 12 March, 2012.

............................................. ................................... Councillor Susan Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

D

Development &

Regulatory Control

D - Development & Regulatory Control

4321 - 26 March 2012

Index

1. 11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill 1 2. 38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill 8 3. 96 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill 21 4. 22 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill 34 5. Delegated Authority 45 6. Legal Matters 47 7. Proposed Heritage Items & Exhibition of the Draft Lep 2012 48

Steve Kourepis GROUP MANAGER DEVELOPMENT &

REGULATORY CONTROL

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & REGULATORY CONTROL

Meeting 4321 - 26 March 2012 D1


ITEM NO : 1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA2011/1057

PROPOSAL : TO CARRY OUT ADDITIONS TO THE RAR OF THE DWELLING – SECTION 96(1A) MODIFICATION TO DELETE LANDSCAPING CONDITION.

PROPERTY 11 CRESCENT STREET, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : STEPHEN GRECH & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS

OWNER : MR M J & MRS J A ADAMO

DATE LODGED : 2 JANUARY 2011

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report Upon consideration at Council’s Ordinary Meeting No. of Monday 13 February 2012 it was resolved: 4/12 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Butt that the this matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for an on-site inspection prior to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 March 2012.

The applicant has submitted an application to modify a development consent originally approved under Delegated Authority. A number of Councillors have expressed an interest in this matter thus necessitating that it be referred to Council for a decision. Preamble Based on the details submitted to Council on 15 November 2011, the modification sought is for the deletion of Condition No.3 from the development consent for additions to the rear of the existing dwelling issued on 8 September 2011. This condition reads as follows:

3. The area to the east of the swimming pool being replanted with suitable screen plants to a maturity height of 3 metres to improve the privacy for adjoining neighbours. The landscaping details being submitted to Council on a plan prior to release of the stamped approved plans.

Public exhibition The plans for modification were placed on public exhibition and no submissions were received in respect of such proposal.




The application for modification to the original consent is recommended for refusal for reasons that:

1. It does not comply with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan No.15; and

2. It will have adverse effects on the amenity of residents of adjoining

properties 2. ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

To demolish part of the walls at the south-western corner of the dwelling house and to extend the southern and western walls to provide for an extended kitchen. A new opening will be provided between the kitchen and the existing dining area. It is also proposed to install new French doors to connect the kitchen with the rear garden area. Description of Modifications The applicant has requested the deletion of Condition No.3 to the consent of DA2011/1057 as quoted above. A written submission from the applicant is also attached. 3. DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY HISTORY

Development application (DA2006/1166) was issued by Council on 12 February 2007, subject to conditions, for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool which included the following:

50. The hard paved areas nominated on the site plan (prepared by Right Angle Drafting) for removal providing betterment to the soft landscaping of the allotment are to be removed and replaced with soft landscaping prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

52. The pool coping located adjacent to the eastern boundary is to be non-

trafficable to ensure the privacy and amenity of the eastern property owner is maintained. Details are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of a Construction Certificate.

Building works were conducted on the subject site without consent of Council, hence, an Order was issued by Council on 3 February 2010 to:

1. Demolish and remove the timber deck, metal handrail, balustrade and doors built at the eastern elevation of the dwelling house.

2. Reinstate the area to the condition it was prior to the timber deck being

constructed.

The owner did not comply with this Order issued by Council, but lodged a Building Certificate application which was issued on the basis that additional screening be provided in order to protect the privacy of the adjoining owner. As stated above, the development application No.2011/1057 was granted on 8 September 2011, subject to conditions. The stamped plans were released to this applicant on 3 February 2012, which provided screen planting addressing Condition No.3 of the consent.




4. REFERRALS 4.1 Heritage The application was not referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser as no change in the dwelling is proposed for modification. The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel as no change to the dwelling is proposed for modification. 4.2 Public Works & Infrastructure The application was not referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer as the proposal involves only landscape work. 4.3 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator, who advised by memo, that with the recent landscape plan submitted to Council, to give compliance to this condition was satisfactory. As a result, the plans were stamped and released with the original applicant having given compliance to Condition No.3. . 5. ASSESSMENT 5.1 Assessment under Section 96, Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The provisions of s.96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, require Council to be satisfied that the development to which consent as modified relates, is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted. It states as follows:

A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if;

(a) it is satisfied that the proposed modification is of minimal environmental

impact, and (b) it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates

is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

(c) it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council

that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

(d) it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed

modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.




The submission by the applicant has stated that the condition requested to be deleted fails the second of the three “Newbury tests” in that the condition does not fairly and reasonably relate to the development for which permission was given i.e. alterations and additions to the dwelling house. Secondly, they are of the view that the condition lacks ‘specifity’. Under this concept, the applicants argue that the condition is ‘ultra vires’. The applicant has requested the deletion of the Condition No.3 relating to the landscape screen as being a ‘minor error in the consent’ for the purpose of the submission of a Section 96 application. The applicant states that ‘persons would rarely stand on that coping (on the eastern side of the pool) where they might interfere appreciably with the privacy of the neighbours’. It is considered that the development to which the consent, as proposed to be modified relates, is of minimal environmental impact and is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted. 5.2 Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 – Height of buildings and garden

area Not applicable as no change is proposed. 5.3 Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development It is considered that the development would not be visible from the street will be compatible with the character and scale of residential development in the immediate vicinity under objective 3.1.b. of the DCP No.15. There is no change to the height, bulk and scale of the existing and desired future character of the residential area as set out under objective 7.1.1(b) of the DCP No.15. The will be no additional site coverage from that approved by Council with this original development application. The proposed amendment will maintain a generous garden area for the site and it will comply with the provisions of clause 7.3 of the DCP No.15. The additional landscaping required to be provided as a result of this condition sought to be deleted, will satisfy the 2/3 minimum soft area planting as required by the DCP No.15. In terms of privacy under clause 7.5 of the DCP No.15, the objectives are to provide for the reasonable privacy of dwellings and outdoor spaces. In this regard, it is considered that the Condition No.3 provided for the privacy in this manner. The applicant in his letter states in part that ‘few, if any, people would stand on the narrow coping on the eastern side of the pool’. 5.4 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and




(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

It is considered that the retention of the condition for additional boundary screen landscaping would improve the visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from or towards the waterway will not be materially harmed. Further, there will be no impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway, from public roads, from public reserves or from land zoned 6(a) or 6(b). 6. OTHER SPECIAL CLAUSES / DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Not applicable. 7. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 8. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The likely impacts of the development are such that there will be no undue detrimental effects on the amenity of the neighbourhood nor The Crescent Street streetscape. The condition relates to the provision of landscaping for the improvement of the garden area of the site and of privacy for adjoining neighbours. This concept of landscaping being used and, in fact, required for ‘betterment’ by the Land and Environment Court is a precedent to be necessarily followed which effectively counters the argument. The consent from which this condition emanated provided for an increase in the site area of the dwelling, thus reducing the area of landscaping available on the site. This further counters the applicant’s argument of the condition relating to upgraded landscaping not properly relating to the development. The maintaining of this condition with provide the surety that non-trafficability will be the result to have the owners give compliance to Condition No.52 of the original consent for the in-ground swimming pool. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would comply with the objectives stipulated under LEP No.1 and DCP No.15. There would be undue impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed deletion of this condition. Furthermore, there would be undue social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed modification to the development consent. Landscaping can be provided at this section of the site based on the most recent landscape plan as submitted to Council and released with the stamped approval. This matter of planting was assessed and approved by Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator. It is considered that the retention of this landscaping condition is reasonable and desirable for reasons that it will give compliance to the development consents granted by Council, it will retain and enhance the landscaped garden area of the site as well as the local environment and will provide for privacy of the occupants of the subject site and the residents of the adjoining site to the east.




9. NOTIFICATION

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.20 for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on the 22 November 2011. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. 10. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST Particular aims and objectives as contained within LEP No.1 and DCP No.15 relate to the matters such as the provision of generous soft landscaped yards and private tree and vegetative planting to complement street trees. It is also to conserve the tree covered environment of the Municipality and for Council to protect and enhance the area’s landscape character. The threefold rationale for retention of the condition requested to be deleted are that it will ensure future compliance with the terms of the development consents issued by Council, it will retain and enhance as ‘betterment’ the soft landscaping of the site’s garden area for its benefit and that of this part of the Conservation Area and will provide effective means of protection of privacy for the occupiers of the subject premises and of the adjoining residents to the east of the subject site. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s.79C and s.96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. The proposed modification to the existing development is considered unacceptable in the circumstances and will have unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the residents of the adjoining properties and of the area generally. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and the application as proposed to be modified is not recommended for approval to Council. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed modification to the development would unduly impact upon the amenity and scenic quality of the area and would undermine the integrity of Council’s planning policies relating to the preserving and enhancing of the landscape character of the area. Accordingly, the modification application is recommended for refusal as set out below. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION That the application DA2011/1057-1 to modify under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the development consent dated 8 September 2011 involving the deletion of Condition No.3 in respect of No.11 Crescent Street, Hunters Hill, be refused for reasons that: 1. It will have adverse impacts on the landscape character of the conservation area;

2. It will reduce the amount of soft landscaping of the garden area of the site thus

removing a ‘betterment’; 3. It will be contrary to the objectives of clause 2 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental

Plan No.1.




4. It will be in conflict with the provisions of parts 3 and 4 of Development Control Plan No.15 relating to landscaping, and

5. It will create an undesirable precedent for Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plan 3. Planning Report




ITEM NO : 2

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : DA2010/1065-1

PROPOSAL : PROPOSED NEW CHILDCARE CENTRE, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FIBRO COTTAGE – s.96 – INTERNAL & EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND FRONT FENCE REMOVAL

PROPERTY 38 EARL STREET, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : MR CON KAKAKIOS, MRS MARY KAKAKIOS

OWNER : MR C & MRS M KAKAKIOS

DATE LODGED : 15 NOVEMBER 2011 & 28 FEBRUARY 2012


REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

1. SUMMARY Reasons for Report The proposal resulted in three (3) letters of objection being received in response to the neighbour notification process. Issues

• Inadequate off-street parking • No reference to drop off zone • Streetscape change • Risk assessment • Need for acoustic report • Health risk re storage bins • Privacy loss Objection Three (3) letters of objection were received. Recommendation The application is recommended for approval for reason that, on balance, it is reasonable having regard to:




1. It is permissible under the zoning 2. It will remain substantially the same development 3. It complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill

Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 and 4. Will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is

justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Original development It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey dwelling house and to construct a new part single storey and part two storey building to be used for the purpose of a childcare centre. The building will be set out as follows: On the ground floor, a staff room, administration office, W.C. shower laundry, kitchen, sleep room, playroom for 0-2 years, bottle preparation and nappy change room, lift and staircase. Off the playroom at the rear of the building will be a covered, elevated infants’ outdoor play area to be fitted with 1.8 metre high privacy screens to the north side and rear. On the lower ground floor level, playroom for 2-5 year olds, storage area, nappy change/children’s W.C., lift and staircase. An access ramp will be provided to the front of the site along the northern side of the building. External stairs will be provided along the southern side of the building to give access to the rear yard. Two (2) off-street car parking spaces will be provided in front of the building and two (2) ‘stacked’ spaces (one being a disabled space) will be provided along the northern side of the building. Vehicular access will be at the northern end of the frontage. A new front fence, 1.2 metres high, comprising plinth, piers and vertical metal panels plus sliding vehicular gate and a pedestrian gate will be constructed along the street frontage. The rear fence will be up to 2.89 metres high. The north eastern side fence will range in height from 1.5 metres at the front section to 2.448 metres at the rear section. The south western side fence will range from 1.2 metres high at the front section to 2.93 metres at the rear section. The side and rear fencing will be lapped and capped with a 45 degree plexiglass top section for acoustic purposes. The site surrounds will be landscaped.




Proposed s.96 modifications Lower Ground Floor 1. Reconfiguration of retaining walls as per Sydney Water maintenance hole

clearances requirements; 2. Reconfiguration of southwest walls as per Sydney Water maintenance hole

clearances requirements; 3. Revision of floor level from RL40.17 to RL40.35 in order to comply with Sydney

Water new sewer pipe requirements. Ground Floor 1. Revision of floor level from RL43.07 to RL43.12;

2. Relocation of Bottle Preparation Room and Nappy Change Room; 3. Revised internal stairs;

4. Reconfiguration of southwest wall (sleep room) as per Sydney Water maintenance

hole clearances requirements; 5. Removal of awning along southwest wall & northeast wall;

6. Changed the ramp from lower ground floor to car park to stair; 7. New column to eastern corner to support roof structure;

8. New columns to outdoor play area to support roof structure; 9. Removal of the front fence (if we provide 2.5m setback to front fence as per DA

Condition No. 2(iii), parking won't comply with AS2890.1:2004), however, 2.5m landscape zone will be retained;

10. Relocation of waste bin storage; 11. Revised RL to car space 3 & 4. Roof Plan 1. Revision of skylights above covered outdoor play area;

2. Revision of roof as per DA Condition No.45.

Elevations and Sections 1. DA Approved building envelope remains the same. Accompanying the application was a statement of environmental effects. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is located on the western side of Earl Street, between High Street and Princes Street, Hunters Hill.




The subject site is legally described as Lot B in DP351002 and is known as No.38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill. It has a frontage of 15.24 metres and an area of 803.6sqm. The site has a slope of approximately 43.17 metres down to the rear (west) and a slope of 1.05 metres down to the north along the Earl Street frontage. Existing on the subject site is a single-storey dwelling house. Adjoining to the south is a two-storey dwelling to the front and a single-storey dwelling on a separate lot to the rear thereof. Adjoining to the north are two (2) part two-storey and part single-storey dwelling houses fronting High Street (with one on the corner of Earl Street). Adjoining to the rear is the rear yard of a two-storey dwelling fronting Pittwater Road. Opposite to the east over Earl Street are mostly single-storey residential dwelling houses. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY A development application for a 50 place child care centre (compared to the 36 place centre for this application) was considered by the Land & Environment Court under appeal which in 2007 was dismissed for a number of reasons which are addressed in further detail below. The main issues that came from the judgement were solar access resultant from an acoustic barrier and inadequate parking facilities. Notwithstanding that decision, the Commissioner concluded that the site was not inappropriate for a childcare centre. Pre-DA meetings were held on 25 November 2009 and 21 April 2010 at which technical advice was given to the owners and their advisers as part of the development process for the development application which was lodged on 7 July 2010. The matter was placed before the Land & Environment Court which issued orders on 28 June 2011 giving approval to the development proposal subject to conditions. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: No SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: Nos.15 & 26 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control; Plan Nos.26 and 15.




7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage As stated within the body of the report, the property is not a schedule 6 item/schedule 7 item and is not in a conservation area under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The proposal was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor. The application was not forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel for reason as set out above. 7.4 Public Works & Infrastructure The application was referred to Council’s Design & Development Engineer who advised by memo that Car Space 1 (Staff) indicated on submitted Plan DA:S96-11 A , indicates a width of 2.5M. AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 requires 2.4 metres minimum width for a 1A class space, plus 300mm if there is an adjacent obstruction, which is the case here. Therefore there is a non-compliance, as the required width becomes 2.7 metres. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who advised by memo that the originally approved landscape plan still applies to the development in its modified form. 7.6 Community Services The application was not referred to Council’s Community Services Manager as there were no major changes to the building or its operation. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation Not applicable.




10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone Residential 2(a1) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ceiling

6.1 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 51.9% 50% Yes 10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 6.1 metres and two storeys in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two-storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area The proposed garden area of 51.9% would comply with the required 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore Building Lines Not applicable. 10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Not applicable. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not applicable.




11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPS) 12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Control Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2 metres maximum

6.1 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% minimum 51.9% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Child Care Centre East (Front) West (Rear) North (Side) South (Side)

Predom. Building Line 6 metres 1.5 metres 1.5 metres

10.754 metres 19.662 metres 2.2m/5.4m 2.0m/4.3m

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15. Heritage Conservation Areas Not applicable. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Not applicable. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Complies and is not proposed to be altered. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks Complies and is not proposed to be altered. Garden Area Complies and is not proposed to be altered. Solar Access There is no change proposed to the roof line and level of the building as approved by the Court. Therefore, there will be no change in the extent of the mid-winter solar access for the adjoining residents.




Privacy No change proposed. Views Not applicable. Car Parking The applicant proposes to increase the width of the two car parking spaces in front of the dwelling to meet the Australian Standards for width where they will adjoin a wall or fence. The Australian Standard 2004 requires a car parking space width of 2.7 metres where it adjoins a wall on one side. At the front of this site there are two car parking spaces, each with a wall/fence on one side and these spaces are showroom at 2.5 metres wide each. Therefore, to comply with the Standard, each space will have to be 2.7 metres wide. Therefore, the two spaces will have to be widened a total of 200mm each which will require the front fence to be re-sited 400mm closer to the street alignment. There are no objections to this change provided that the proposed front fence is sited 400mm closer to the street alignment and not deleted as proposed. This matter is set out in amended condition 2(iii) as set out in the recommendation. Garages and Carports Not applicable. Fences It is proposed to delete the front fence which was conditionally approved by the Court in the form that it would be 2.5 metres inside and parallel to the street alignment. The deletion of such fence work as requested would not be desirable from a streetscape perspective. However, as set out in the recommendation, the fence could reasonably be re-sited 400mm closer to the street to give compliance to the Australian Standards to provide for the increased width of off-street parking spaces adjacent to walls etc. for domestic type usage and still meet the requirements of the Court for such work. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies • Hunter’s Hill Council S94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The proposed and latest modification works based on the cladding of the roof of the additions to the existing dwelling are not considered to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents of adjoining properties, the Earl Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposed modification would comply with the objectives stipulated under LEP No.1 and DCP No.15. It will not however give compliance to the condition as imposed by the Court in relation to the front fence and so this deletion will not be recommended, but will be subject to modification by slight relocation to give compliance to the Australian Standard for car parking facilities.




There would be no major impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works as set out in the recommendation below only on the basis that the finished building will be of the same form, height and character as that as approved by the Court on 28 June 2011. Furthermore, there would be no undue social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed development and subject to compliance with the conditions of consent. It would be reasonable to grant formal approval to those parts of the modifications sought as provided for in the recommendation as proposed under the provisions of S.96 of the EP & A Act. The proposal generally will result in the development being substantially the same as the originally approved plans subject to compliance with conditions as set out in the recommendation. For reasons given in the statement accompanying the application, it is considered reasonable to accede to the proposed changes in and around the building. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of thirty (30) days commencing on the 7 December 2011. Within the specified time period three (3) submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 22 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Andrew & Katalin Koudrin 36A Earl Street HUNTERS HILL

• The removal of the front fence. This alters the residential character of the surrounding area and clearly marks this out as a commercial development

• We further note that the two car parking spaces, even with the front fence removed. Are so narrow and tight that it is likely that staff will not use both places to park during the day. This reduces the effective car parking spaces to three, well short of the required amount

• The amended application proposes an increase in the Ground Floor level of 18cm and an increase in the first floor level of 5cm. Given that the acoustic report for the original application left very little margin for additional incremental noise impacts we believe that these changes warrant a new acoustic report based on the amended plans

• We object in principle to the placement of bins being adjacent to a neighbouring property given that it will be in an uncovered area

Mr. S. & Mrs H.Lieng 41 High Street HUNTERS HILL

• The proposed waste bin storage area has no cover and is to be relocated next to our back fence that is closer to our family room. This will have an adverse effects on our health as the waste bins will be emptied only once a week

• High noise levels from the industrial air conditioning unit is now proposed to be relocated next to our back fence that is closer to our family room




NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 22 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

• In the proposed modification, the area between the 1.8m privacy screens and the combination of glass and solid block has been highlighted

Elizabeth Wall & Stephen Timbrell 36 Earl Street HUNTERS HILL

• The applicant has now in effect reduced (the parking numbers) to two from 3 (not counting the disabled space) because the tight parking situation, where we believe that staff will only use one of the spaces for parking at the front because of the tightness of the space with two cars in the space

• There has been no reference to the drop off and pick up zone that has been planned since March 2011 but not presented in any documents

• The original application proposed a fence to hide the commercial aspect of the development. The only way to utilise this space is removal of the front fence to allow the car doors to open. This will cast a scar on the streetscape and set a dangerous precedent for other private businesses

The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: • The removal of the front fence. This alters the residential character of the

surrounding area and clearly marks this out as a commercial development

Comment: It is agreed that the proposed removal of the front fence will be detrimental to the likely finished section of the local streetscape. Under these circumstances, that part of the s.96 request (for fence removal) is not supported and is recommended for refusal as there is no conflict with the conditions of consent or of the Australian Standard in relation to car parking, space widths etc.

• We further note that the two car parking spaces, even with the front fence removed. Are so narrow and tight that it is likely that staff will not use both places to park during the day. This reduces the effective car parking spaces to three, well short of the required amount

Comment: This matter of off-street parking requirements and standards was one for the Court in arriving at its decision for approval of the development in this form. Under these circumstances, that part of the s.96 request (for fence removal) is not supported and is recommended for refusal as there is no conflict with the relevant conditions of consent as issued by the Court as compliance with the Australian Standard in this case is not mandatory. • The amended application proposes an increase in the Ground Floor level of

18cm and an increase in the first floor level of 5cm. Given that the acoustic report for the original application left very little margin for additional incremental noise impacts we believe that these changes warrant a new acoustic report based on the amended plans

Comment: It is considered that there will be no likely change in the acoustic effects due to the slight change in the height of the building compared to the Construction Certificate plans but still giving compliance to the original development plans as approved by the Court. Under these circumstances, it is considered that there will be no need for a new acoustic report.




• We object in principle to the placement of bins being adjacent to a neighbouring property given that it will be in an uncovered area

Comment: The plans show the waste bin area as being covered by a metal roof. It is stated that in the Plan of Management, any nappies or sanitary items will be disposed of appropriately through commercial waste service facilities. Under these circumstances, it is considered that this is not going to create an undue local amenity issue. • The proposed waste bin storage area has no cover and is to be relocated next

to our back fence that is closer to our family room. This will have an adverse effects on our health as the waste bins will be emptied only once a week

Comment: The plans show the waste bin area as being covered by a metal roof. It is stated that in the Plan of Management, any nappies or sanitary items will be disposed of appropriately through commercial waste service facilities. Under these circumstances, it is considered that this is not going to create an undue local amenity issue.

• High noise levels from the industrial air conditioning unit is now proposed to be relocated next to our back fence that is closer to our family room

Comment: According to the architects, the air conditioning condenser will be selected and installed in accordance with the approved acoustic report. Therefore this objection is not deemed valid but will then be subject to scrutiny and measurement in accordance with the conditions after occupation of the centre.

• In the proposed modification, the area between the 1.8m privacy screens and the combination of glass and solid block has been highlighted

Comment: No changes are proposed to the privacy screens so the visibility of the adjacent walls/ windows should not be altered from the original approval, is not subject to modification and therefore has to remain as part of compliance with the DA conditions as set out by the Court.

• The applicant has now in effect reduced (the parking numbers) to two from 3 (not counting the disabled space) because the tight parking situation, where we believe that staff will only use one of the spaces for parking at the front because of the tightness of the space with two cars in the space

Comment: The off street parking numbers will not alter from the required three (3) spaces plus the disabled parking space is not subject to modification and therefore has to remain as part of compliance with the DA conditions as set out by the Court.

• There has been no reference to the drop off and pick up zone that has been planned since March 2011 but not presented in any documents

Comment: In this case, where no reference is made to alteration or removal of the drop off / pick up zone at the front of the site, such facility is not subject to modification and therefore has to remain as part of compliance with the DA conditions as set out by the Court.

• The original application proposed a fence to hide the commercial aspect of the development. The only way to utilise this space is removal of the front fence to allow the car doors to open. This will cast a scar on the streetscape and set a dangerous precedent for other private businesses




Comment: It is agreed that the proposed removal of the front fence will be detrimental to the likely finished section of the local streetscape. Under these circumstances, that part of the s.96 request (for fence removal) is not supported and is recommended for refusal as there is no conflict with the relevant conditions of consent as issued by the Court as compliance with the particular Australian Standard is not mandatory. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s.79C and s.96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. The amendments sought are generally considered acceptable for approval under s.96.of the Act. The proposed modifications relating to the changes to the windows/doors, skylights and ground floor wall removal are considered acceptable as an alteration to the approved development consent and would have no unreasonable environmental impacts upon the locality when compared to the original development approval as granted by the land & Environment Court. The outcome of this part of the development is considered to be substantially the same as that originally approved. The applicant proposes to increase the width of the two car parking spaces in front of the dwelling to meet the Australian Standards for width where they will adjoin a wall or fence. The Australian Standard 2004 requires a car parking space width of 2.7 metres where it adjoins a wall on one side. At the front of this site there are two car parking spaces, each with a wall/fence on one side and these spaces are showroom at 2.5 metres wide each. To comply with the Standard, each space will have to be 2.7 metres wide. Therefore, the two spaces will have to be widened a total of 200mm each which will require the front fence to be re-sited 400mm closer to the street alignment. There are no objections to this change for the front fence to be sited 400mm closer to the street alignment and not deleted as proposed by the applicant. This matter is set out in amended condition 2(iii) as per the recommendation. This will mean that the fence will be 2.1 metres (instead of 2.5 metres) from the street alignment and will still preserve the integrity of such fence location condition as set out by the Court. It is considered that the remaining amendments sought for approval will not cause injury to the amenity of the neighbourhood and will maintain compliance with the general requirements of DCP No.15 and No.26 and have been as approved by the Land & Environment Court. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposed modifications as set out in the recommendation will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents or on the streetscape and will be substantially the same development as that originally approved. Accordingly, the modification sought under S.96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is recommended for approval where not subject to the provisions of the refusal part of the application. Condition No. 2(iii) and 5 of the development consent as issued by the Court are recommended, therefore, to be amended accordingly. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.




RECOMMENDATION That this application DA2010/1065-1 to modify, under Section 96 of the Act, the development consent No. 2010/1065, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new child care centre at No.38 Earl Street, Hunters Hill, be approved and Condition Nos.2(iii) and 5 being altered, as follows: 2 (iii) The front fence and gates being setback a minimum of 2.1 metres from the

front street boundary and not exceeding a height of 1200mm above natural ground level. The area between the fence and front boundary is to comprise a layering of landscape up to a height of at least 1.5m and include at least one (1) canopy tree from Council’s preferred tree list.

5. The development consent No.2010/1065 relates to the plans prepared by Artiva

Architects drawing Nos.DA:S96-21 & 31 all Issue A, dated 14 November 2011, as received by Council on 15 November 2011 and DA:S96-01 Issue B, DA:S96-03 Issue A, DA:S96-11 issue B as received by Council on 28 February 2012, except where amended by conditions of this consent.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Submissions 4. Architect’s Response to Objections




/ITEM NO : 3

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 2011/1016

PROPOSAL : SECTION 82A REVIEW OF DETERMINATION - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING, NEW FRONT FENCE

PROPERTY 96 BARONS CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : CRACKNELL & LONERGAN ARCHITECTS P/L

OWNER : DAVID CHARLES SHAD

DATE LODGED : 16 JANUARY 2011


REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM ZADGAN

1. SUMMARY Reasons for Report The proposal is for a s82A review of the refusal of Development Application 2011/1016 for proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the application has to be referred to Council’s Ordinary Meeting for a decision. Issues (additional information provided to support the s82A Review) • The existing Stringybark tree will be retained – Arborist report prepared • The proposed front setback to comply • Side setback increased on the first floor from 940mm to 1500mm • Garden Area compliance provided • Solar access increased to adjoining properties, as a result of the increase in the first

floor setback

Objections No objections were received. Recommendation The application is recommended for approval because it:




1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. is appropriate 4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is

justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Original Proposal The original application sought consent for alterations and additions, first floor addition to the existing dwelling, double garage and new front fence and removal of one (1) tree to the front garden. The proposal consisted of the following: Ground Floor Entry, theatre, double garage, laundry, bathroom, kitchen and combined living dining area and patio. First Floor The first floor comprises of four (4) bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk in robe), main bathroom, sitting room and front and rear balcony gardens. The existing driveway crossing is to be altered to allow access to the proposed double garage. On 19 April 2011, Council received amended plans in response to Council’s letter dated 22 March 2011. The amendments included: • Modifications to the design to comply with Clause 16A – Garden Area of Part 7.3 of

DCP No.15. • Survey provided for the front building setback. • Front fence materials changed to a more solid form with a maximum height of

1200mm. • Schedule of colours and materials provided. • Elevations provided excluding trees. • Driveway width reduced from 5m to 3.8m and landscaping provided along the

driveway. S82 Review changes In support of the request for review, the applicant has provided the following changes: • The existing Stringybark tree will be retained – Arborist report prepared • The proposed front setback to comply




• Side setback increased on the first floor from 940mm to 1500mm

• Garden Area compliance provided • Solar access increased to adjoining properties, as a result of the increase in the first

floor setback 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is known as No.96 Barons Crescent, Hunters Hill, located on the southern end of Barons Crescent between Thorn Street to the north and Meyers Avenue to the south. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a site area of 635.5sqm. The site has a street frontage of 16.155m to Barons Crescent. Currently the site accommodates a singles storey brick and tiled roof dwelling with a single carport to the front and metal shed located in the rear garden. Vehicular access is currently provided to the site via a driveway located adjacent to the northern boundary with access from Barons Crescent. Surrounding development consists of single to two storey dwelling houses. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY • On 25 February 2011, the original application was lodged with Council. • On 20 May 2011, this application was refused under delegated authority. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: DCP No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15. 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable.




7.3 Heritage Not applicable. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The subject application was referred Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no concern. 7.5 Parks & Landscape The subject application was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Coordinator who provided the following comments:

The issue of the entry of the patio intruding into the root zone of the tree has been largely eliminated by the cantilevering the concrete structure. There may still be a problem with the footings of the western end of the proposed theatre room affecting the root system of Tree No.3. I would suggest a way to overcome this would be the use of pier and beam construction techniques for the footings along this side of the theatre room. Tree No.3 will require approximately five branches to be removed to allow construction of the dwelling. This should not affect the balance of the tree or its health providing the work complies to Australian Standards. Recommendations The footings on the western end of the proposed theatre room are to be pier and beam construction to ensure the protection of any roots from Tree No.3. The construction to be supervised by the Site Arborist to ensure compliance. The recommendations contained in Part 6 of the Arborist report by ENTS Tree Consultancy are to form part of the conditions of consent. Additionally, the Tree Protection Recommendations contained in Appendix No.6 of that report are to form part of the conditions of consent.

The above comment will be included as part of a special condition. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION 9.1 State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environmental Plans (REPs) – Deemed SEPPs Not applicable.




9.3 Other Legislation Pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the applicant for the proposal, is seeking a review of the Council’s determination of Development Application 2011/1016, which was refused.

Procedure - 82A Review of determination

(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application.

(2) A request for a review may be made at any time, subject to subsection (2A). (2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires, if no such appeal is made against the determination, or

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the

determination is disposed of by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.

(3) The prescribed fee must be paid in connection with a request for a

review. (3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the

development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

(4) The council may review the determination if:

(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or (ii) a development control plan, if the council has made

a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request

for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the

development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change

the determination.




(5) The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by the person who made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to be made by a person who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or

(b) if the determination was made by the council—the council.

Supporting Documentation In support of the request for review, the applicant has provided the following changes: • The existing Stringybark tree will be retained – Arborist report prepared

• The proposed front setback to comply • Side setback increased on the first floor from 940mm to 1500mm • Garden Area compliance provided • Solar access increased to adjoining properties, as a result of the increase in the first

floor setback 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone (a1) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

HEIGHT Ceiling

5.9 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 51% 50% Yes 10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements.




10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi-unit housing-density and garden area controls

Not applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 5.9 metres and 2 storey in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area The proposed revised garden area of 51% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore Building Lines Not applicable. 10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and

(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The proposed works would not be visible from the waterway. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards Not applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application.




12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPS) 12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Control Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

5.9m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 51% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house West (Front) East (Rear) North (Side) South (Side)

Average street pattern 6m 1.5m 1.5m

7.758m 12.411m 900mm 940mm

Yes Yes No No

Planning Policy – All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15. Heritage Conservation Areas The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 4 of Development Control Plan No.15. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks The plans appear to indicate side setback non-compliances, with the numerical requirements of Part 7.2 – Setbacks under DCP No.15, as the northern and southern side boundary setbacks appear to be less than 1.5 metres. Part 7.2.3 – Side Boundary Setbacks, states that:

The distance between any part of the building and the side boundaries of the site shall not be less than 1.5 metres.

The setback of the northern boundary for the proposed ground floor garage extension would be 900mm. It should be noted that there are existing garages and carports within the street located in a similar location to the proposal. It is considered that in this instance the non-compliance would not eventuate in any material impacts, such as privacy or overshadowing, as this structure is not habitable, contains no windows to the northern elevation, and is a single storey structure. Concessions are permitted to single storey structures, such as carport and garages, subject to satisfying the objectives of Part 7.2.3 of the DCP No.15, such as privacy and solar access.




The setback of the southern boundary for the proposed ground floor theater and laundry front extension would be 940mm. This proposed front extension would follow the same southern side setback of the existing dwelling and would not result in privacy or overshadowing impacts upon the adjoining property at No.102 Barons Crescent, as this elevation is single-storey, there is a driveway immediately adjacent to this front extension, with the proposed theater having no windows to the southern elevation and the proposed laundry being a non-habitable low trafficable area. Concessions are permitted for single-storey structures subject to satisfy the objectives of the setback provisions. The proposed first floor additions are further setback and would comply with the 1.5m side setback requirement. The proposed front building setback would be 7.758m to the entry porch and 9.493m (theater) -10.513m (garage). It should be noted that the existing front building setback of the street (four to each side of the subject site) is inconsistent and ranges from 5.4m-20.4m. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed front building setback provided is within the average street pattern and would comply with the objectives and requirements of Part 7.2.2 of DCP No.15. However, to further protect the tree located immediately adjacent to the proposed porch entry area, a condition will be imposed that the length of the proposed entry porch area be reduced to 2m and to stand approximately 8.45m from the front boundary alignment. Notwithstanding the non-compliances, it is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Garden Area Refer to section 10.6 of this report ‘Garden Area’. Solar Access The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9.00am mid-winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.102 Barons Crescent. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid-winter the shadows are cast to the south of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.102 Barons Crescent. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3.00pm mid-winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining properties, being No.102 Barons Crescent. The shadowing appears to affect more than 33% of the site at No.102 Barons Crescent. However, it should be noted that if the entire open space of the site was incorporated in this calculation that the overshadowing would be less than 33%, and from 9.00am -12 noon there would be only minor shadowing, which would not be material. The non-compliance solely occurs in mid-winter and is considered that this area would not be overly used at this time of the year. Also, it should be noted that the mid-winter (22June) shadows cast are the worst scenario for the full year. The extent of the overshadowing is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9.00am, 12 noon and 3.00pm of the winter solstice.




The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy The proposed rear first floor balcony is considered to be acceptable in terms of privacy, as the rooms from the balcony are off low traffic areas (bedrooms) and privacy screens have been proposed to the southern and northern elevations of the proposed balcony. Also, there is sufficient rear separation of 12.411 metres from the building to the rear boundary alignment. No plant species has been nominated for the front roof top garden planter box. To protect the privacy of the northern property a condition will be imposed that Camellia Sasanqua “Star above star” to be planted along the northern side of the roof top planter box at 1 metre centres. Subject to conditioning, it is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Views Not applicable. Car Parking The proposal complies with Part 7.7.2(f)(h) of the DCP, as two (2) car parking spaces have been provided for a gross floor area in excess of 125sqm. Garages and Carports The proposed double garage has been integrated as part of the dwelling and is accessed via Barons Crescent. The proposed double garage has been setback 1 metre from the front wall of the dwelling and is set approximately 2 metres below street level, which would result in the car parking of the site appearing as a secondary element. It is considered that the proposed garage does not detract from the townscape, obscure the house, or compete with the traditional streetscape elements. Also, in appearance it is similar to other garages within the street. No colour has been nominated for the proposed garage door. Therefore, a special condition will be imposed that the proposed garage door is to be painted in a dark and recessive earthy tone/colour. Therefore, the proposal would satisfy the planning policy objectives outlined under Part 7 and 8 of the DCP No.15. Fences The application proposes a sliding timber infill front gate and low brick fence with an approximate maximum height of 1200mm. The height of the proposed fence is considered to be acceptable. No colour has been nominated for the proposed fence. Therefore, a special condition will be imposed that the proposed fence is to be painted in a dark and recessive earthy tone/colour. Therefore, the proposal would satisfy the planning policy objectives outlined under Part 9 of the DCP No.15.




12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies • Hunter’s Hill Council S94A Developer Contributions Plan 2011

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Barons Crescent streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) days on the 21 November 2011. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. 15. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1, and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION That the review of determination under s82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, to the refusal of D

sesquicentenary celebration hunter's hill council...which met on 12 march 2012. book on mayors –...

Documents