mosman council ordinary meeting agenda - 20 april 2010 · report to ordinary meeting of council –...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 20 April 2010

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Open Question Time Open Question Time will be held for a period of 10 minutes commencing at 6.45 pm prior to the commencement of a Council meeting scheduled to commence at 7.00 pm. Open Question Time is available only to Mosman residents and ratepayers. Questions must be in writing and must not contain any preamble or comment. Residents or ratepayers wishing to ask a question will be invited to the lectern by the Mayor to read out the question. The resident or ratepayer will then read out the question to the Mayor then lodge the written question with the General Manager. Questions may be on any relevant matter unless it is on the Agenda for this meeting. Open Question Time is an opportunity for questions only, not speeches or discussion, and every endeavour to answer will be given immediately by the Mayor or referred to the General Manager. Any derogatory comments and/or personal attacks on Councillors or staff will result in the offender being instructed to leave the Chamber immediately and any such questions will be disregarded. Further, Open Question Time is not an opportunity for debate amongst the elected members. Questions asked and responses given will not be recorded in the Minutes as Open Question Time is not part of the meeting agenda. Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting of Council commences in accordance with the Agenda prepared for the Meeting. Committee of the Whole The General Manager will ask residents prior to the commencement of the Council meeting if they seek to address Council on a General Manager’s and Departmental Report listed on the agenda and will register their names. Council will resolve into Committee of the Whole to allow residents to address the Committee and for Councillor discussion and questioning in relation to the report listed on the agenda. Reports on which residents wish to address Council will be dealt with expeditiously as possible between 7.00pm and 9.00pm. Should there be too many matters to be heard or should residents have major matters that need lengthy discussion, the affected residents will be advised to come back to the meeting at a particular time. All remaining items will be dealt with following resolution of reports which residents have an interest in. Supper Adjournment At approximately 9.00pm there is usually a recess break for 15 minutes at which time the Mayor will invite those people in the gallery to join the Councillors for supper. Resume Ordinary Meeting The Ordinary Meeting resumes at the conclusion of the supper break. Emergency Evacuation In the event of an emergency, please remain seated and await the direction of staff in attendance at the meeting. If the building needs to be evacuated you will be directed to the nearest exit.

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2009-2010 MAYORAL TERM

Mosman Bay Ward

Manager

Governance / Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Anne Connon

DirectorEnvironment

and Planning

ManagerDevelopment

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Balmoral Ward

Cr Tom Sherlock Cr Libby Moline

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Dom Lopez OAM

Cr Jim Reid

Middle Harbour Ward

Cr Denise Wilton

Cr Warren Yates

Cr Belinda Halloran

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

2. WELCOME TO VISITORS

3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has previously been granted to Councillor Halloran in respect of this meeting

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 6 April 2010

7. MAYORAL MINUTES

8. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/57 4 Keston Avenue .............................................................................................. 1 EP/58 23 Holt Avenue ............................................................................................... 43 EP/59 28 Ruby Street................................................................................................ 56 EP/60 36 Moruben Road........................................................................................... 92 EP/61 1 and 1A Arbutus Street ............................................................................... 126 EP/62 572 Military Road.......................................................................................... 159 EP/63 96A Bradleys Head Road (Mosman Police Station)..................................... 173 EP/64 24 Fairfax Road ............................................................................................ 180 EP/65 24 Musgrave Street ...................................................................................... 202 EP/66 Garage - 9A Musgrave Street....................................................................... 226 EP/67 Dwelling Alterations - 9A Musgrave Street ................................................... 256 EP/68 22 Calypso Avenue ...................................................................................... 282 EP/69 131-135 Avenue Road.................................................................................. 288 EP/70 11 Spencer Road.......................................................................................... 298 EP/71 SEPP 1 Variations ........................................................................................ 308 EP/72 Development Applications ............................................................................ 309 EP/73 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses ............................................. 313

9. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Report to Ordinary Meeting of Council – 20 April 2010

Page 1

EP/57 4 Keston Avenue

DA NUMBER: 8.2010.4.1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garages, subdivision of two existing allotments into three, and the erection of two new attached dwellings and garages with vehicular access from Wolger Road.

REPORTING OFFICER: Claire Muir, Senior Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 6 January 2010

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

LOCALITY MAP

2

72

SP

14447

SP

C11

DP 103293

DP

10505

DP

933907

DP

948051DP

956960

DP

958091

B

5996

97

D P

455948

43

1

8

242

241

7

DP 2485

D P

546898

2A1

D P

532235

D P

619608

11

11

B

32

DP 931247

11

D P

235284

DP

2473

D P

521952

D

P

3909

13

2

DP

100

7030

DP

248

5

D

P

4359

7810 A

10

B

DP

666688

D P

442791

DP

901972

DP

1127376 DP

917255

2

1

12222

D P

455941

D P

524329

DP

1095835

1221

DP

865

693

DP 559097

DP

133568

17

Y1

2

16

D P

440877

D P

443247

D P

445621

DP

798679D

P 657093

D P

925636

DP

933

111

11

1

DP

109

5835

DP

932

567

SP 15658

91

11

7

DP 900299

DP 929204

DP 929683

P 931348

DP 104954

DP 930115

DP 930276

DP 931372

931677

1

A

11

1

985

929633

111267

31602

2

11

1

DP

107

2

11

11

11

DP 935646

DP 935898

DP 938899

DP 948201

DP 950029

11

1 SP1

4111

X

1DP

933

436

DP

933

989

SP

14272

SP

381

RESERVE

A

1

1

1

40

BA

BSP 15910

2

27

18 2022

2426

12

4

3 1

42

68

1012

14

16

37

51

9

0A

5

16

2224

26

23

21A

25

114

139

110112

102 104 106 108

25

1517

1921

23

98A100

9

13

57

1113

20

1410

1216

18

1113

1517

1921

62

4

7A

8

7

9

5

8

10

KE

ST

O

NO

BLE

KESTON

AR

CH

ER

RD

BELMONTLN

KEMBLE


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development site is known as No.4 Keston Avenue. The site comprises 2 lots - Lots 40 and 41 in Deposited Plan 1095835. Lot 40, upon which the existing dwelling house stands, is located on the northern side of Keston Avenue. The lot at the rear known as Lot 41 is mostly vacant land with three garage structures upon it containing eleven parking spaces. The lot is accessed via an access handle from Wolger Road. Consent is sought for the following: Demolition of garages; Subdivision into 3 lots via boundary adjustment between Lots 40 and 41 (DP 1095835)

and subdivision of Lot 41 (DP 1095835) into two lots; Construction of two (2) semi-detached dwellings each with 4 bedrooms and car parking

for two cars on the newly created allotments from Lot 41; and Landscaping. These works were previously approved under DA 8.2006.492.1 at the Council meeting 16 October 2007. However this application expired prior to the Applicant commencing works. It should be recognised that no planning policies of determinative weight have changed since this time. The application was notified in accordance with Councils notification DCP from 13 January to 29 January 2010. Submissions were received from nine (9) adjoining property owners, multiple submissions were received from some properties. The neighbour submissions raised concern primarily with loss of light, overshadowing, vehicular access, drainage, privacy, stormwater, bulk and scale and tree removal. Due to the irregular configuration of the subdivision pattern and the historical underdevelopment of the site, adjoining properties have enjoyed the benefit of the site being under utilised and this has included free access and an outlook over the subject site despites its private ownership and residential zoning. Any development of the subject site within the limits of the controls is likely to alter the current high level of amenity afforded to neighbours by the site remaining vacant. The proposal is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site comprises 2 lots - Lots 40 and 41 in DP 1095835. Lot 40, upon which the existing dwelling house stands, is located on the northern side of Keston Avenue, between Archer Street and Gouldsbury Street. The Lot is irregular in shape with a frontage of 12.39m to Keston Avenue. It falls 3m to the rear at an average gradient of 6%.


Page 3

Lot 40 presently contains a detached part one/part two storey dwelling house with vehicular access at the rear via Wolger Road. The lot at the rear known as Lot 41 is mostly vacant land with three garage structures upon it containing eleven spaces. The lot is accessed via an access handle from Wolger Road. Surrounding development consists of both attached and detached one and two storey dwelling houses. Lot 41 is surrounded by the back gardens of Nos 11-21A Noble Street and Nos 2-8 Keston Avenue. The proposal is for an infill development on this site. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND 8.2006.492.1 Development Application 8.2006.492.1 was approved by Council on 16 October 2007 for the following works: Demolition of garages; Subdivision into 3 lots via boundary adjustment between Lots 40 and 41 (DP 1095835)

and subdivision of Lot 41 (DP 1095835) into two lots; Construction of two (2) semi-detached dwellings each with 4 bedrooms and car parking

for two cars on the newly created allotments from Lot 41; and Landscaping. The current application is for the same development. Due to a stormwater easement on the site which includes an overland flow component, the Applicant was required to undertake a Flood Study. Amendments to the proposal (principally raising of floor levels) were required in response to the findings of the study. The application includes the re-align and upgrade of the stormwater pipe. In response to issues raised during the notification period, the applicant through discussions with Council relocated one of the bedrooms of the proposed dwelling located on lot 2. 8.2008.133.1 / 8.2007.51.1 Approval was granted under delegated authority on 28 September 2008 for a boundary adjustment and alterations to the existing dwelling house comprising rear extension, carport, and new front fence at 4 Keston Avenue (lot 40). Specifically the proposal consists of:


Page 4

Boundary adjustment to reduce the size of Lot 40 to 450m2 and increase the size of Lot 41 to 813m2 (1,095m2 inclusive of access handle);

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including: the removal of uncharacteristic verandah on the front façade; Reinstatement of traditional verandah and windows; Contemporary rear extension and roof; Relocation of windows on the eastern and western elevations; New front fence; 1.8m rear fence and vehicular gate;

Demolition of four garages; Construction of a carport and shed at the rear of the site; and Landscaping. This application (8.2008.133.1) is for the same development as that approved under DA 8.2007.51.1, which was approved on 22 June 2007 as deferred commencement consent. The deferred commencement consent required the lodgement and registration of a linen plan of subdivision with the Land Titles Office showing a right of carriageway over Lot 41 to the benefit of Lot 4 prior to the commencement of the approval. The deferred commencement condition was not satisfied within the required timeframe and the consent lapsed. Whilst this consent is complimentary to the consent that is sought to be modified, it is of no material consequence to the subject application. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Demolition of garages; Subdivision into 3 lots via boundary adjustment between Lots 40 and 41 (DP 1095835)

and subdivision of Lot 41 (DP 1095835) into two lots; Construction of a semi-detached dwelling with 4 bedrooms and car parking for two cars

on each of the newly created allotments from Lot 41; and Landscaping. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006


Page 5

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

Zoning 2(a3) Residential

Site Area

Proposed Lot 1

Proposed Lot 2

Approved Lot 3 (existing dwelling house)

230m2

230m2

450m2

418m2 (512m2 inclusive of access handle)

397m2 (490.2m2 inclusive of access handle)

454m2 (548m2 inclusive of access handle)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes*

Building Height

Lot 1

Lot 2

8.5m

8.5m

8.8m

8.5m

No (SEPP 1)

Yes

Wall Height

Lot 1

Lot 2

7.2m

7.2m

7.5m

7.9 (rear section with skillion roof) 7.0m )front section with hipped roof)

No (SEPP 1)

No (SEPP 1) Yes

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area

Proposed Lot 1 222m2 N/A

Proposed Lot 2 217m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio

Proposed Lot 1 0.5: 1 (256m2) 0.46: 1 Yes

Proposed Lot 2 0.5: 1 (245m2) 0.44: 1 Yes

Landscaped Area Yes

Proposed Lot 1 141m2 135m2 No

Proposed Lot 2 130m2 136m2 Yes

Resulting Lot 3 135m2 143m2 Yes

* Note: Each allotment owns a strip of the access handle.


Page 6

DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks - Lot 1

Garage - west

Ground floor - west

First floor - west

0m

0.9m

1.5m

0m

1.5m

0.9 - 1.5m

Yes^

Yes

No – Yes

Setbacks - Lot 2

Ground floor - east

First floor - east

0.9m

1.5m

0.9m -2m

1.5m

Yes

Yes

Height Plane

Lot 1

Lot 2

45o from ground level along southern boundary

450

450

Yes

Yes

Parking

a. Lot 1

b. Lot 2

1 space

1 space

2 spaces

2 spaces

Yes

Yes

Fencing Height 1.2m (front fence) No front fence N/A

Solar access to living and main private open space areas

2 hours between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm

> 2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate (both dwellings)

Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy - 40

Water – 47%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 44%

Yes

^ see section 5.3.1 below for an assessment for wall on boundaries. 5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (Development Standards) Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum wall height Height Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height The proposed development on Lot 1 due to the variable existing ground level has a maximum wall height of 7.5m which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 0.3m or 4.2%.


Page 7

The proposed development on Lot 2 due to the variable existing ground level and the skillion roof design has a maximum wall height of 7.9m which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 0.7m or 9.7%. The wall height variances are proposed within the centre of the site (at the party wall) for lot 1 and at the side wall to the master bedroom skillion roof for lot 2. The proposal complies with the wall height control elsewhere. Overall building height with both proposed semi-detached dwelling houses is at or below the 8.5m height control. Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height The proposed development on Lot 1 due to the variable existing ground level has a maximum building height of 8.8m which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 0.3m or 2.5%. The building height variance is proposed along a section of the ridge of the skillion roof of Lot 1. The non-complaint section of roof is located within the centre of the site and is non-complaint for a length of 3m and width of 0m to 0.53m at its maximum. The non-compliant section of the building is the ridge of the roof which provides shade to the east facing highlight windows which provides light and ventilation. Objectives The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views,

Maximum Wall and Building Height The proposal does not impact on private or public significant views. The outlook to open space afforded by the largely vacant site will be diminished

however the ability to se a dwelling where currently an outlook to greenery exists does not constitute view loss.

Satisfactory separation exists between the properties with sufficient landscaping between.

(b) to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and

surrounding foreshores,

Maximum Wall and Building Height The site cannot be seen from the Harbour. The proposed dwellings will not be

visible from the waterway and surrounding foreshores. The development will have little presence from the public domain.

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

buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form; Maximum Wall Height The wall height variances are proposed within the centre of the site (at the party

wall) for lot 1 and at the side wall to the master bedroom skillion roof for lot 2. The proposal complies with the wall height control elsewhere. The wall height of the proposal is compatible with existing development in the area.


Page 8

Maximum Building Height The variation proposed for Lot 1 is minor. The part of the roof which exceeds the

8.5m provides for amenity to future occupants of the dwelling without detrimental amenity impacts for the adjoining residents.

There are a variety of roof forms in the locality including hipped, gable ended and flat roofs. The ridge height is compatible with that of surrounding dwellings and the design utilises a variety of roof forms including a pitched roof.

(d) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in

existing residential areas. Maximum Wall and Building Height There are no detrimental amenity impacts due to the non-compliance in the wall

or building height. State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standards and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standards is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes being private car parking for the adjoining residents and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.


Page 9

5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned residential 2(a3). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a semi-detached dwelling and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. Subdivision The proposal seeks consent for: subdivision of the current Lot 40 into two lots and boundary re-alignment to the rear of

Lot 41 This creates a total of three lots including easements for access and drainage as required by the proposal. Each resultant lot is apportioned with a share of the access handle. As noted above the proposal complies with the minimum lot size prescribed by clause 12(2) of the MLEP 1988. Pursuant to clause 12(3) of the MLEP 1988 the access handle is not included for the purpose of calculating site area. The proposal also complies with the objectives of clause 12 as follows;

(a) to retain the pattern of subdivision in residential areas while allowing infill development of smaller lots in some localities;

The lots without street frontage in the locality do not exhibit a common pattern of subdivision. The subdivision proposed by the applicant would not further comprise the composition of the existing lots and allows for effective use of the site. The proposal is for an infill development on an underdevelopment site. The proposed semi-detached dwellings occupy a similar permissible footprint as would a single dwelling house on the existing allotment.

(b) to ensure lots have a minimum size which would be sufficient to provide useable area

for building and landscape;

As outlined below the proposal complies with the maximum allowable floor space. While the proposal includes a variation to the landscaped area requirement, the proposal satisfactorily meets the objectives of that clause and a condition of consent is recommended deleting the side pavers for lot 1 to ensure numerical compliance is achieved.

(c) to require larger lots along the foreshore or where the topography or other natural

features of a site limit its subdivision potential; and


Page 10

The subject site is not located on the foreshore and there are no topographical or other natural features which would limit its subdivision potential. While the site has been largely cleared, the Applicant has proposed to retain a number of significant trees.

(d) to provide small lot subdivision in some zones as an alternative to redevelopment for

the purpose of multiple dwelling development to ensure the retention of existing dwelling stock and the amenity of the area.

The proposal allows for the retention of the existing dwelling at 4 Keston Avenue.

Height The proposal complies with building height for lot 2 and maximum storeys requirements as stated in Clause 13 of MLEP. There is a non-compliance with wall height for both lots and building height for lot 1 which have been assessed under SEPP 1 (refer to section 5.2.1) as satisfying the objectives of Clause 13. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with the numerical requirement and objectives of clause 14 Maximum floor space in residential zones of MLEP 1998. In order to calculate floor space ratio, it is necessary to divide the floor space by the site area. Access handles are included in site area for the purposes of calculating floor space ratio. The access handle not being contiguous with lot 2 does not alter this calculation. Landscaped Area The proposal for Lot 2 and 3 complies with the numeric control and objectives of clause 15 of the MLEP. The proposal for Lot 1, discounting the car turning area which is grass and the paved side passage proposes a variance of 6m. This is relatively minor and can be rectified with a condition of consent deleting the part of the proposed paving in the side passage. Subject to a condition of consent requiring the deletion of the paving in the side passage, the variance for Lot 1 against clause 15 of MLEP is overcome. The subject site contains three trees; an olive tree, a mature Silky Oak and a semi mature Magnolia Grandiflora. The majority of the block has been cleared in the past and is currently overrun with weeds and grasses. Most of the trees screening the site are located on the surrounding properties. The access handle also contains a large Camphor Laurel tree, this is to be retained. There is no arborist report for this tree. While it is understood that the reconstruction of the driveway proposed is essentially to replace the existing situation, it is considered appropriate to ensure that the reconstruction of the driveway is achieve with the input of an arborist. The proposal does not propose to remove any of the trees on site. An arborist report prepared in December 2008 suggests that the Olive Tree should be removed. The Olive Tree (Olea Europeasubsp europaea) is a weed species and is not protected by Mosman Tree Preservation Order. Its roots are wrapped around Council’s stormwater pipe and any work to this pipe will necessitate its removal. There is no work proposed by this Applicant to this part of the pipe, which is why the applicant does not propose its removal. However, the renewal of the pipe system is best achieved by replacement of the pipe in its entirety. According it is


Page 11

not considered appropriate to require its retention. It is recommended that the tree offers some amenity value in terms of visual privacy. Therefore it is appropriate to approve its removal and replacement with an appropriate species. During the assessment of the application it was noted that the Grevillea robusta located on the boundary between 2 and 4 Keston Avenue suffered significant loss during the storm event of 6 February 2010. At the time of writing this report the tree's health and hazard potential were being investigated. The intention in the architectural plans is that the tree is to be retained. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory. The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of surrounding development. The proposed works will not be visible from the foreshore. The proposed works will not produce any detrimental impacts upon the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal meets the clause objectives and satisfies Clause 27 of MLEP Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites The site has been used for residential purposes being private car parking. There is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. For the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse. Excavation The proposal incorporates excavation for footings. Clause 31 of the LEP requires that any form of land form modification control the effects of soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss, and drainage impacts. Documentation submitted with the application with regard to these matters has been assessed by Council’s Engineer. The proposal is satisfactory, subject to conditions of consent. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage Lots 40 and 41 do not contain a heritage item nor are they within immediate proximity of a heritage item. Lot 40 is within the Keston Avenue conservation area. The proposed boundary adjustment does not affect the contribution of No 4 to the Keston Avenue conservation area heritage


Page 12

significance. Accordingly the application is reasonable allowing for the heritage provisions of MLEP 1988. The heritage provisions of the MLEP 1988 do not apply to the works on Lot 41 as there are no provisions in MLEP which relate to development in the vicinity of heritage conservation areas. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as semi-detached dwellings and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Subdivision The proposal meets the objectives of the subdivision control in that the proposed allotments are sufficient in size to accommodate useable space for building and landscaping whilst maintaining satisfactory amenity for surrounding properties. The access handle is being formed into three (3) part lots, i.e not separate lots. The purpose of this is to equally distribute the maintenance of the driveway across all three owners. Planning guidelines P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 require that the following matters be considered for applications proposing subdivision of land: Matter Consideration Slope of land The topography of the site is relatively flat and does not

preclude the proposed subdivision. Townscape design criteria This assessment has found that the proposed development

reasonably satisfies the townscape design criteria. Protect natural or cultural features including heritage items and their curtilage

This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on natural and cultural features, including the adjacent heritage conservation area.


Page 13

Matter Consideration Acknowledge site constraints such as terrain or soil erosion

The subject site is relatively flat. The site is constrained by the stormwater infrastructure and surrounding properties. The proposal responds to the requirements from the previously conducted flood study. The design and related conditions of consent of the semi-detached dwellings ensures there is no undue privacy loss.

Retain special features such as trees, rock outcrops and views

The site has been previously cleared of natural vegetation. The remaining significant landscape items, the Camphor Laurel, Magnolia and Silky Oak are all to be retained. The proposed development complies with MRDCP requirement that development must not significantly obstruct views from neighbouring properties. The ability to see a dwelling house where currently an outlook of greenery exists does not constitute view loss.

Address the street The existing allotment does not allow for development that addresses the street as the new dwellings are removed from the street frontage. This would be unchanged irrespective of any subdivision of the site.

Minimise impact on neighbours amenity including access to sunlight, daylight, privacy and views

This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on its neighbours.

Orientation of lots for energy efficiency

The proposed allotments allow for north south orientation and are of a size that allow for energy efficient development as demonstrated by the BASIX Certificate that has been issued.

Existing subdivision pattern, street address and vehicular access

As the existing allotment is a battleaxe arrangement, its further subdivision into two lots is not uncharacteristic of the predominant subdivision pattern which comprises allotments with a range of widths, dimensions and shapes. Council’s Manager of Asset Services has reviewed the proposed driveway and car parking arrangement and has found the proposal to be satisfactory.

Vegetation and landscaping requirements

Council’s Landscape Designer has advised that the proposed tree removal and subsequent landscaping of the site is acceptable subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

Stormwater management Council’s Manager Asset Services has reviewed the proposed stormwater management system and has found it to be acceptable subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

Easements The plan of subdivision identifies the easements which are proposed to be created. These include easements for drainage, right of carriageway and footway. These easements will be required to be created as part of the subdivision of land.

Servicing requirements mail, waste, power and water

An advice note is included in the recommendation requiring the applicant to consult with public authorities including mail and power. The applicant is required to obtain a S73 Certificate from


Page 14

Matter Consideration Sydney Water prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure the waste storage area is of adequate size and design.

Width of access handle The access handle is existing. Siting and Scale The form, scale and siting of the development is compatible with the prevailing development pattern and its character. The proposed development has been appropriately sited with complying side setbacks, building height and floorspace ratio. This achieves a reasonable scale of development. The proposed privacy screen treatment to the first floor windows result in a variation to Planning Guideline P7 of section 4.2 of MRDCP. The proposal remains satisfactory as there are no amenity impacts from the windows and adequate spatial relief is provided between buildings. In certain circumstances Council may allow a nil (0m) setback where there will be minimal adverse affects on adjoining properties and where walls do not contain windows. While this is satisfactory the wall height proposed is above 3.5m, measuring 4.8m. The proposal satisfies the other criteria in that it does not result in an adverse visual impact as the bulk is mitigated by the adjoining garage, building separation, level changes to the adjoining site and landscaping. The proposal also complies with section 5.8 – Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing of the MRDCP, as outlined below. Due to the irregular configuration of Lot 41 and the historical underdevelopment of the site, adjoining properties have enjoyed free access and an outlook over the subject site despites its private ownership and residential zoning. Any development of the subject site within the limits of the controls is likely to alter the current high level of amenity afforded to neighbours by the site remaining vacant. Views Concern has been raised by the adjoining property owners in relation to loss of outlook resulting from the proposed development. Any redevelopment of the site in accordance with the density provisions of MLEP 1998 would compromise the outlook from each of these properties. The materials and finishes proposed, along with the proposed landscaping will assist to minimise the impact of the development on the outlook from these properties. The proposed development complies with the MRDCP requirement that development must not significantly obstruct views from neighbouring properties. The ability to see a dwelling house where currently a view of greenery exists does not constitute view loss. Due to the location of the subject site and the local topography the proposal does not impact on private or public district, water or harbour views. The proposed works satisfy section 4.3 of MRDCP. Landscaping


Page 15

As outlined in section 5.2 the proposed landscaping is reasonable. The proposed works satisfy section 4.4 of MRDCP. Streetscape and Building Design The subject site does not have a street frontage and will have minimal impact upon the streetscape. There is a shared driveway accessed from Wolger Road, which is proposed to be upgraded whilst retaining a significant tree. The design is contemporary and incorporates a varied roof design including a pitched roof. The proposed buildings have been well articulated with a variety of finishes and materials, which will assist in softening the proposal. It is acknowledged that the proposal is of modern design. The fact that the subject site adjoins a heritage conservation area does not necessitate a more traditional design as the development cannot be viewed from the public domain. The proposal satisfies section 5.1 of the MRDCP. Car parking and Access A double garage has been integrated into the design of the dwelling house on Lot 1 and a single garage has been integrated into the house on lot 2. A carport is also proposed on lot 2 which is acceptable. For new dwelling houses, no minimum or maximum parking provisions apply. Car parking is to be appropriately provided and integrated with the dwelling. Semi-detached dwellings are required to have one car parking space under Section 5.2 - Car parking and have the benefit of 18m2 before garage space is included as gross floor area. The additional 18m2 has been included in the floorspace calculations of the dwelling on Lot 1. The proposed carport located at Lot 2 is proposed to have columns rather than a solid wall which reduces the visual bulk and allows easier access from the carport. The carport although not directly integrated into the design of the house has links with the proposed dwelling house and has been appropriately sited adjacent to the access driveway to the existing house at No.4 Keston Avenue. Privacy Visual Privacy The site is bounded on all sides by the back gardens of the surrounding houses. Therefore any development on this currently vacant site will have an impact on the privacy levels of these houses. Planning guideline P1 of section 5.6 of the Mosman Residential Development Control Plan, states ‘habitable room windows with a direct sightline to habitable room windows or private open space in an adjacent dwelling within 9m must be either: Offset from the edge of one window to the edge of the other by a distance equivalent to

the width of the existing window; or Have sill heights of 1.6m above floor level; Have permanently fixed obscure glazing in any part of the window below 1.6m above

floor level. The proposal incorporates the following features to preserve visual privacy:


Page 16

North – Ground floor There is sufficient separation and landscaping to the northern boundary to maintain privacy. North – First floor There are first floor balconies to the master bedroom. The balconies are set back 6m from the rear boundary. Pursuant to section 5.6 of the RDCP above ground floor balconies must not directly overlook rooms and private landscaped area of adjoining properties unless screening can mitigate overlooking. In this regard a condition of consent is recommended that reduces the depth of the trafficable area of the balcony to 1m with the residual area becoming a planter box. West – Ground Floor The ground floor west facing windows and doors are noted as having frosted glass. While the floor is elevated, privacy is maintained to the adjoining rear yards through existing rear fences, structures located on the rear boundary in adjoining yards and landscaping both existing and proposed. West – First Floor The windows on the western elevation are either orientated north, or are each partially covered by a privacy screen which limits the ability to overlook gardens adjoining the western boundary. This is considered an appropriate treatment due to the direct relationship with the Noble Street fronting properties. The other window facing west is a highlight window to the ensuite, which is satisfactory. It is considered reasonable to require a privacy screen to the western edge of the north facing balcony to ensure no undue privacy loss. East – Ground Floor There are a number of ground floor windows along the eastern boundary. Particular concern has been raised about the bi-fold doors adjacent the kitchen and entry. Due to this area being raised above the stormwater pipe the bi-fold doors afford an outlook towards No.6 Keston Avenue. These are noted as being frosted glass for 3 panels and being covered with timber privacy screen for 3 panels, these devices will not be useful when the doors are open. While generally the proposed and existing landscaping between the subject site and the adjoining neighbours would maintain privacy between all parties, given the size of the proposed opening, it is appropriate that these doors be changed to a fixed, translucent glass unit. A condition of consent is including in the recommendation. East – First Floor There a number of window on the eastern elevation, travelling south to north they are: Two highlight windows for bedroom 3; Bedroom 4; Frosted bathroom window; Hallway;


Page 17

Master bedroom. There is also a window which faces south east to bedroom 3. These windows are not assessed to result in undue privacy loss, given the proposed use of the associated rooms, landscaping in the side passage and separation to the nearby properties. The relationship to the eastern properties is not as direct as those to the west. Particular concern has been raised with regard to the south east facing window to bedroom 3. This bedroom window is located approximately 16m from the rear of No.6 Keston Avenue and the separation distance is assessed as reasonable. There is a wall to the eastern side of the first floor balcony which acts as a privacy screen. South The properties located to the south, 2 and 2a Keston Avenue, have adequate separation to the proposed semi-detached dwelling. While there is a first floor terrace, it is adequately set back from the southern boundary to avoid undue privacy loss to the adjoining private open space and the existing first floor balcony at 2a Keston Avenue. Acoustic Privacy Normal household use of the dwellings and balconies is not likely to result in adverse acoustic impacts for the adjoining properties. The operation of the air conditioners is covered by condition of consent. MRDCP does not explicitly provide controls for acoustic protection from normal domestic use of a property. The proposed density of two (2) residential dwellings is assessed as reasonable. The balconies are adequately set back from the adjoining neighbours to minimise noise disturbance. Building separation is reasonable. Screen planting is also proposed along boundaries and significant trees will be retained. The proposal will not result in unreasonable acoustic privacy impacts. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. The proposal will cast additional shadows over the adjoining properties, however the design ensures that these are minimal and remain compliant with the established controls. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 indicates that the provisions of the BASIX Certificate override DCP provisions which would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to achieve the fulfilment of the BASIX requirements.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/scanview/inforce/s/1/?EPITITLE=%22State%20Environmental%20Planning%20Policy%20(Building%20Sustainability%20Index%3A%20BASIX)%202004%22&nohits=y�


Page 18

Stormwater Management Council’s Manager Assets and Services has reviewed the proposed development and has advised that the development is acceptable subject to recommended conditions. The proposal includes construction over an existing stormwater easement. In order to satisfy Council's stormwater requirements the pipeline within the easement is to be upgraded. In addition, the floor levels have been raised to be above design overland flow levels. The portion of the building over the easement has been required to be demountable to facilitate future access to the pipeline if required. There is also a sub-wall proposed along the boundary between the subject lots and the northern fence of 2a Keston Avenue which will direct the overland flood waters from the subject lots into a collection area under the new driveway and then allow it to flow down the battle-axe drive. The stormwater design has been found to be reasonable subject to conditions indicated in the recommendation. Site Management and Excavation Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP. Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Belmont townscape. The proposal is not visible from the public domain due to its battleaxe arrangement and will not have a material impact on the Belmont Townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal satisfies the MTDCP. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Manager Assets and Services raised no objection subject to conditions.


Page 19

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 13 January and 29 January. Eight (8) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 2 Keston Avenue; 2A Keston Avenue; 6 Keston Avenue; (multiple submissions were received from this address) 8 Keston Avenue; 10 Keston Avenue; 12 Keston Avenue; and 15 Keston Avenue; 17 Keston Avenue; 17 Noble Street. One (1) consultant submission was received: Michael Blakeney on behalf of 2A and 6 Keston Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Development is not really for semi-detached dwellings as they don’t fit the typical form

for semis. Comment: The proposal conforms with the definition in the Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. Overdevelopment. The scale of the proposed buildings is not in accordance with the

hard to soft ratio, i.e. two residences crammed into a small site with minimal green landscape.

With a side setback of around one metre from side boundaries and height above 7m and long unbroken walls, the proposed building wand their windows absolutely dominate their site and impose themselves on neighbours;

The proposed landscaping does not address any concerns raised due buildings dominance of their site;

Development should be instead a single storey with the maintenance of more of the existing tree canopy;

The bulk of the development on Lot 2 will dominate the view from our backyard and destroy out family and visual amenity;

Bulk and scale would have a major degrading effect on the private external living space of our property and others which adjoin due to excessive bulk and scale;

Our opinion is that the land should remain as the existing single allotment with an appropriate development thereupon.

Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the provisions of MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. The floor space is excessive; The use of the site access handles in the calculation to reduce the floor ratio to be

compliant is questionable; Comment: Refer to section 5.2.6 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the provisions of MLEP 1998. In order to calculate floor space ratio, it


Page 20

is necessary to divide the floor space by the site area. Access handles are not excluded under the LEP from the site area utilised for the purpose of calculating floor space ratio. Perimeter wall height is over 7.9m does not comply with the maximum wall height of

7.2m; Maximum building height is also excessive; Comment: Refer to section 5.2.6 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the height provisions of MLEP 1998. Side setbacks do not comply; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the setback provisions of MRDCP. The architecture is not in keeping with the Mosman heritage listing for Keston

Avenue; The proposed external wall and roofing material achieve very little harmony with the

adjacent properties; Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the heritage and building design provisions of the MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. Pattern of subdivision is inconsistent with locality. The previous report noted the

existing subdivision pattern to be an aberration. It is therefore difficult to understand why Council would be willing to extend this aberration by allowing further subdivision;

The proposed development does not conform to the required orientation format and provides no degree of privacy / seclusion for the back yards of ours and approximately 8 adjoining residences;

Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the subdivision provisions of MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. Privacy loss from two storey dwellings The dwelling will overlook into surrounding back gardens and homes; Overlooks into 9 rear yards of other properties; Privacy loss from western facing doors which are higher than the side fence. Privacy loss from windows from ground and first floor. The ground floor is 1.1m above the level of our backyard and result in 1.2m of the

glass doors being above the rear fence line. Why fixed external privacy screens have been shown on the western elevation but

the eastern elevation windows. Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the privacy of adjoining properties. The proposal significantly overshadows the neighbouring properties, impacting the

amenities of the existing homes and their gardens; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the overshadowing provisions of MRDCP. This area floods and is dangerous; The are is affected by the natural watercourse; Land is not suitable for subdivision and further development;


Page 21

We do not know when Council re-zoned this parcel of land as residential but we submit that was an error and may now have possibly compromised Council due to threats of legal action by the development, as a result if the lack of Council and floodplain details which should have been available to the development prior to his purchase;

The development mitigates the development on the flood plain by raising the dwellings on a significant concrete platform. The resulting space under the platform is proposed to accommodate excess/overflow in a 20year event. Therefore these building are designed for a significant stormwater flow under their living room floors every time big storm greater than 20years occurs.

No consideration has been given to the potential catastrophic scenarios of ‘150yr storm events’ now applicable due to global warming, complete failure /blockage of the 20yr event size in-ground stormwater infrastructure, complete blockage of the under house space/channel due to resident/tenant storage and or debris eg fence palings;

Soil erosion beneath structures due to overland/bypass stormwater flows If this DA is approved, the current over floor plain will be replaced by a wall essentially

the total floor change with a space under dwellings to accommodate some water but certainly not debris charged flows capable of clocking off the underfloor space.

In our opinion Council would then be accountable for changing an overland flor path and watercourse that has been in place for centuries and consequently be accountable for forcing floodwater onto adjacent properties.

Comment: In the previous assessment of the application, a flood study was conducted, the results of which informing the amended design. This same flood study accompanied this application and was referred to Council’s Manager of Assets and Services who raised no objection to the proposal. Emergency vehicle access is restricted by narrow laneway; The proposed redevelopment of the laneway will reduce its amenity; The utility and safety of the narrow and curved right of way will be a continuing

problem with vehicles above domestic car size eg trade, emergency vehicles, ; The proposed landscaping does not acknowledge the narrowness of the handle and

the practical constraint of vehicles generally. Proposed turning circles are highly questionable and a proper analysis conducted by

a fully qualified traffic engineer using specialised computer programs should be done; The proposed driveway grades are insufficient and most cars will scrape their

undercarriage; Comment: The proposal complies with MTDCP and MRDCP. The site has been assessed in regard to vehicular manoeuvrability and has been found to be satisfactory. Furthermore the application was referred to Council’s Manager of Assets and Services who raised no objection to the proposal. Insufficient visitors parking / trade parking. Noise and pollution from the extra manoeuvring needed to get in and out of the tight

site; Comment: The proposal complies with MTDCP which does not require visitor parking for the type of development proposed. MRDCP does not require acoustic protection from normal domestic use of a property. The proposed density of two (2) residential dwellings is assessed as reasonable. Loss of too many trees; Concerned for the loss of the Grevillea Robusta, a native tree providing a habitat and

a food source for many native birds and small marsupials; Careless to lose native species such as a silky oak;


Page 22

Comment: The proposal does not remove significant landscape items. Grevillia Robusta is shown on plans as wholly on 4 Keston Ave property, but is

shared between 2A and 4 Keston Avenue; Comment: The Grevillia Robusta is intended to be retained. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation regarding compliance with the arborist's report. Noise from air conditioners causing nuisance; A preliminary acoustic analysis and model indicates that the site is a hollow and the

amphitheatre effect from even acceptable domestic occupation noise will be amplified and impact on the adjoining neighbours;

Comment: Noise arising from the normal residential use of the proposed dwellings is unlikely to have a significant impact. All mechanical plant associated with the development will be acoustically treated. The air conditioners are covered by condition of consent. Proposal is constructing over large old pipes and we do not believe they can be built

over; The driveway looks like it will be structurally dependent over the existing Council

Stormwater main for support which could make it collapse and increase the flooding risk;

Comment: An applicant is required to show approved plans to Sydney Water for assessment with regards to the impact upon sewage pipes etc. Sydney Water will then advise the applicant if there is any impact upon Sydney Water assets and the way to proceed. This is normal development practice and will be the same for this proposal. Division of right of way is illogical and may contravene subdivision regulations and

implies ownership and management that is thoroughly impractical; The proposed subdivision of the handle extinguishes part of the existing right of way

of 2 and 2A Keston Avenue and would necessitate agreement to amendment of their property titles. There has been no approach to either owner by the applicant.

The easement for the partly above around stormwater line and the practical ownership issue of this easement are not addressed;

Comment: This is construction issue and not a planning consideration. The applicant gives no advice on how the proposed handle and its future landscaping

are to be maintained by the three different owners; Comment: The maintenance of the right of way will be shared amongst the three lots, this is why the access handle is divided into three (3) part lots. The development is seeking to extinguish the right of access entitlements of the two

existing dwellings at no.2 and 2A Keston Avenue; Comment: The application does not propose to extinguish any right of way. The maintenance of the right of way is a civil matter. Development prevents or significant restricts us from exercising our right to

implement future improvements and structures (garage/ dual occupancy) at the rear our property. As the proposed walls will be within the zone of influence of foundation pressures of our walls.


Page 23

Comment: There is no evidence of 6 Keston Avenue benefiting from a right of way over the rear allotment of 4 Keston Avenue. The future development of 6 Keston Avenue in the rear yard, under the current planning legislation would generally require the consent of council. A condition of consent requires that the person having the benefit of the consent protect any existing footings on adjoining land. On drawing 0419/DA/09 (northern elevation) shows the construction of a new

retaining wall required for overland flow which the northern boundary of our property no 6 Keston Ave. We advise Council that we have never been approached by the developer on this issue nor are we prepared to permit any such civil works to be implemented on our property.

Comment: Noted. The proposal will be built entirely on the subject site. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation. Request for a timber profile to be built or height poles to show how the development

will impact surrounding properties; Comment: Under MRDCP profiles are requested if there is potential view loss to water. This is not the case with this proposal 8.0 CONCLUSION The development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan, Mosman Transport Development Control Plan and other relevant Council and State planning policies. This assessment has found that despite a few variances with Council’s requirements the proposed development is acceptable as it will have a reasonable impact on the public domain and adjoining properties. The proposal utilises a number of design techniques to minimise its bulk and scale including building modulation, variety of materials and the provision of a landscaped setting. The proposal has accommodated the stormwater easement and access requirements thereto. The site constraints have been taken into account and the proposed development can be accommodated on site. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Chrism Properties Pty Ltd care of Sandberg Schoffel Architects. The owner is Quinn On. The estimated value of works is $2,241,000. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to, wall height and building height within clause 13(2)


Page 24

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

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

the adjoining properties; and (d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response. B. That Development Application No. 8.2010.4.1 be approved subject to the following

conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

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

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by

Survey Ref No 15229_4 27 May 2004 Dunlop Thorpe & Co

0419-DA-01 Dec 09 Sandberg Schoffel Architects






MKES4-1 November 2008 Waterplan Pty Ltd

MKES4-2 November 2008 Waterplan Pty Ltd

Job No 0680 LP 01 issue A 22 December 2008

Leuchars Partners

Document title Date of

document Prepared by

Statement of Environmental Effects

December 2009 Sandberg Schoffel Architects

SEPP 1 building height objection

Undated Sandberg Schoffel Architects

SEPP 1 wall height objection

Undated Sandberg Schoffel Architects

Arborist Assessment December 2009 George Palmer, Botanics, Tree Wise People Pty Ltd


Page 25

Document title Date of document

Prepared by

Arborist Report for Silky Oak, Grevillea Robusta

21 February 2007 National Tree Management Pty Ltd

Flood Study and Analysis 16 November 2008

WaterPlan Pty Ltd

Basix Certificate 290154M-02

2 January 2010 Applicant

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions must be satisfied prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

Conditions may require the submission of additional information with the Construction Certificate application. Applicants should also familiarise themselves with conditions in subsequent sections and provide plans in accordance with any design requirements contained therein.

A Certifying Authority must not issue a Construction Certificate for development on a site which affects an existing building unless a Council, a Consent Authority or an Accredited Certifier has carried out an inspection of the building.

Amendments to Plans

2. To maintain reasonable privacy to adjoining properties, the trafficable area of the first floor terraces off the master bedrooms is to be reduced to one (1) metre in depth with the residual area to form a planter box. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

3. A 1.6m high privacy screen is to be erected on the western edge of the first floor terrace off the master bedroom for lot 1 to ensure no undue privacy loss for the adjoining residents. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. The east facing bi-fold doors adjacent to the kitchen and entry are to be replaced with a fixed translucent glass window unit. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

5. The paving along the western side setback is not approved and shall be deleted to ensure compliance with clause 15 landscaped area requirements in residential zones. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

6. The olive tree located on the eastern boundary is to be replaced with a canopy tree capable of reaching a minimum height of 8m. The replacement tree shall be placed in the same location as the tree to be removed. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. The approved works are to be constructed wholly within the subject site. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

8. The approved division of the access handle shall form part lots of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and not separate allotments. Plans are to be notated prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


Page 26

9. To ensure the landscape and architectural plans are co-ordinated, the landscape plan shall be amended to include the retention of the Grevillia located on the boundary between 2 and 4 Keston Avenue. Details are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

Construction Certificate Application Plans

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

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

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

Dilapidation Report – Council Assets

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

Dilapidation Report – Private Assets

12. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 2 Keston Avenue, 6 Keston Avenue, 8 Keston Avenue, 1 Wolger Road, 11 Noble Street, 13 Noble Street, 15 Noble Street, 17 Noble Street, 19 Noble Street and 21A Noble Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Excavation, Backfilling and Support for Neighbouring Buildings

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

Retaining Walls

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


Page 27

Council Pipeline and Overland Flow Path 15. To ensure drainage connection/s are properly completed, the applicant shall complete

an “Application to Connect to Council’s Stormwater Pipelines or Gully Pits” and or a “Road Opening Permit” and pay the applicable fees prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Both forms are available from Council.

16. Detailed construction drawings of the new pipeline are to be prepared and a copy forwarded to Council for their records. Construction drawings are to be based on details provided to Council by WaterPlan Ref: mkes4-fl-70704-R dated 4 July 2007 and R-mkes4-88116 dated 16 November 2008. These construction drawings are to be certified by Waterplan in accordance with the criteria detailed in the Water Plan Design Certificate dated 16 November 2008.

17. Details are to be submitted showing that the driveway will not be structurally reliant on the pipeline for support and that it will not effect the pipelines ability to drain. The driveway shall be constructed in such a manner that it places no load on Council’s pipeline.

Structure over Council's Pipeline

18. Any Structure built over Councils Pipeline shall be bound by the following requirements:

the footings of walls within and in the influence zone of the drainage easement shall be below the invert level of the drainage pipeline;

any structure constructed over the drainage easement shall be designed by a Structural Engineer to ensure that the structure does not place a load over the drainage pipeline;

Any structure built over the easement shall be built in a manner in which Councils pipeline can be accessed for maintenance and repair. This involves structurally separating the structure over the easement from the rest of the building so that it can be removed and replaced if access to the pipeline is required.

A copy of these details certified by a suitably qualified Structural Engineer is to be submitted with the application for the Construction Certificate.

The owner of the allotment shall bear all costs associated with removing, replacing or maintaining any structure within the drainage easement including any damage that may result to the building as a consequence of such works.

Sydney Water

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

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

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

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


Page 28

Driveway

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

21. To ensure the vehicle crossing is properly completed, the applicant shall complete and pay applicable fees for an application under Mosman Council’s Construction of Vehicle Crossing By Contract.

Materials & Finishes

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

BASIX Certificate

23. Where any conditions of this consent affect the commitments specified in the submitted BASIX Certificate, a revised BASIX Certificate is to be prepared to ensure energy efficiency targets are still achieved.

Long Service Levy

24. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate of 0.35% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more. To pay the levy online go to https://levy.lspc.nsw.gov.au/.

Security Deposit

25. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $5,000 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

Section 94 Contribution

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

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

http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/�


Page 29

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

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

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE WORKS

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

Notice of Intent to Commence Site Works

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

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

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

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

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

holder of a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and

notified the PCA of any such appointment; and unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal

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

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

Home Building Act

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

(a) in the case of work to be done by the holder of a contractor licence under that Act: (i) the name and licence number of the contractor; and (ii) the name of the insurer by whom the work is insured under Part 6 of

that Act,


Page 30

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

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

Construction Hoarding or Fencing

29. If site or building works will: cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or

rendered inconvenient or unsafe; or have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects

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

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

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

(c) the hoarding fence must be securely fixed to withstand strong winds (d) the fence must have only one point of entry which must correspond with the

vehicle crossing and have inward opening gates or gates which are removable and fitted with a locking device

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

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

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

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

Protection of Landscape Features

30. To limit the potential for damage to the trees to be retained, tree protection measures are to be installed for neighbouring trees as per the site plan on dwg no DA02 by Sandberg Schofel Architects dated December 09, for the Grevillea on site, as per the report by National Tree Management Pty Ltd dated 21 February 2007 and for the other trees as per the report by Botanics, Tree Wise People Pty Ltd dated December 2008.

Sediment & Erosion Controls

31. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls shall be constructed prior to commencement of any site works in order to prevent the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation’s "Managing


Page 31

Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Manual Volume 1, 4th Edition March 2004”. [Note: this document is now available from the Department of Planning]

32. To limit the tracking of material onto the street from vehicles and plant equipment, a site access driveway shall be provided prior to the commencement of site works consisting of 40mm aggregate made from either recycled concrete, blue metal or quartzite gravel. The layer of aggregate material shall be a minimum of 150mm deep, 2m wide and 5m long.

Lapsing of Consent if Site Works Not Commenced

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

Public Liability Insurance

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

Initial Arborist's Report

35. The applicant must engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (Australian Qualification Framework level 5 or above) to assess the impact of the proposed works and employ best practices (e.g. minimise compaction, soil build up and or excavation within primary root zones*) to ensure the longevity of trees to be retained. The arborist is to prepare and submit to Council a report prior to works proceeding documenting the measures to be employed and certifying that they have been implemented.

*primary root zone = 10 x Trunk diameter 1400mm from ground level (measured as a radius from the trunk)

DURING SITE WORKS / CONSTRUCTION

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

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

Demolition

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

Asbestos Material

38. Where asbestos material shall be removed or disturbed as a result of any proposed demolition, alteration or addition, all work must be carried out by a person licensed under Chapter 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001 and undertaken in accordance with the requirements of clause 29 of the Protection of the


Page 32

Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996. All asbestos to be removed must be disposed of at a tip recommended by the NSW Environment Protection Authority and under no circumstances shall be re-used or sold.

Signs for Building and Demolition Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Work Hours

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

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


41. Any construction hoarding or fencing is to be maintained in good order throughout the life of the fence.

Shoring and Adequacy of Adjoining Property

42. If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development consent must at the person’s own expense:

(a) protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

(b) where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

43. All excavations and backfilling shall be limited to that required in accordance with the approved plans only and must be executed safely and if necessary properly guarded in accordance with appropriate professional standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. At least 7 days before excavating, give notice of an


Page 33

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


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

45. All construction vehicles shall be washed prior to exiting the site to remove site material on the vehicle and prevent it from entering the stormwater system in the surrounding road network. All polluted water must be retained on site for sediment extraction before it is discharged in to the stormwater system.

46. All stormwater runoff must be intercepted and diverted from areas susceptible to erosion through temporary earth banks or other drainage methods. The diversion is not to direct waters onto adjoining properties.

Dust Control

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

Council Property

48. Suitable mechanisms are to be put in place to ensure that whilst work is being undertaken on Councils Pipeline, there is no interruption of flow in Councils Stormwater network.

49. Site inspections are to be undertaken by Waterplan at critical stages throughout the Stormwater works. Evidence of these site inspections are to be forwarded to Council.

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

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

Construction Traffic Management Plan

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


Page 34

Driveway

53. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the Wolger Road frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.

Council Pipeline 54. The abandoned Council pipeline is to be removed at the applicant’s expense.

55. All costs for construction of the new pipeline are to be borne by the applicant.

Excavation, Backfilling and Support for Neighbouring Buildings 56. If an excavation extends below the level of the base of the footings of an adjoining

allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

Preserve and protect the building from damage If necessary underpin and support the building in an approved manner and; At least seven (7) days before excavating give notice of an intention to excavate

to the adjoining owners and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work. 57. All work associated with excavation and/or backfilling operations must be executed

safely and if necessary guarded in accordance with appropriate professional safety standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.


58. The finished external surface materials, including colours and texture of any building and/or hard paved areas, shall blend with the surrounding environment and shall be non-reflective.


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

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

60. To minimise disturbance to the trees to be retained, for the duration of site works the tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report prepared by National Tree Management Pty Ltd dated 21 February 2007 for the Grevillea and Botanics, tree Wise People Pty Ltd for other trees, are to be maintained in good order.

Arborist Inspections

61. The applicant must engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (Australian Qualification Framework level 5 or above) to assess the impact of the proposed works and employ best practices (e.g. minimise compaction, soil build up and or excavation within primary root zones*) to ensure the longevity of trees within 5m of any construction. The arborist is to attend on site during critical stages of excavation and construction works within the vicinity of trees to be retained and is to record the following information;


Page 35

the methods of excavation or construction used to carry out works; any damage sustained by the tree/s as a result of the works; any subsequent remedial works required to be carried out by the arborist as a

result of the damage; and any future or ongoing remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the

long term viability of the tree/s.


Tree Preservation

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

Leighton Green Cypress

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

Threatening Process - Phytophthora Root Rot

64. The spread of phytophthora root rot contributes to dieback in trees and has been identified as a key threatening process to native vegetation under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. To minimise the likely spread of phytophthora root rot, control measures shall be implemented during site works including:

cleaning or sterilising machinery, equipment and footwear associated with soil disturbance activities;

preventing the escape of soil from the site; bagging and removing weeds; minimising work activities when the soil conditions are very wet; and using local plant stock from suppliers who are accredited by the Nursery

Industry Association.

Note: Council’s Bushland Officer may be contacted for clarification of the above measures or for further information on the prevention of spread of phytophthora root rot.

Weeds

65. For the duration of site works all noxious and environmental weeds shall be removed and managed. A list of noxious weeds and environmental weeds may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Weeds”.




Page 36

Rainwater Tanks

66. To ensure no adverse amenity impacts arise from the rainwater tank, the tank shall be located at ground level, be of a non-reflective colour which is in keeping with surrounding development and have overflow waters piped to Council’s street gutter or other approved stormwater disposal. Household waste waters must not be directed to the rainwater tank.

BASIX Certificate

67. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated 2 January 2010

Siting and Height

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

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

Lighting

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

Toilet Facilities

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

Waste Management

71. Building materials shall be re-used, recycled or disposed of in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the application.

Local Government Act 1993

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

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

lift, hoist or tackle projecting over the footway

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


Page 37

Approved Plans

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

Critical Stage Inspections

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

after excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings, and prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element, and prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building

element, and prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, and prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation

certificate being issued in relation to the building. The critical stage inspections must be carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), or if the PCA agrees, by another certifying authority excepting the final inspection which must be carried out by the PCA.

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

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

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

Record of Inspections Carried Out

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

The record must include details of:

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

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

authority who carried it out.


Page 38

BASIX Certificate

76. A Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate (whether interim or final) unless it is satisfied that each of the BASIX commitments has been fulfilled. For the purpose of satisfying itself as to the fulfilment of any such commitment, a certifying authority may rely on the advice of any properly qualified person.

Within 2 days after issuing a final Occupation Certificate for a building, the Certifying Authority must apply to the Director-General for a BASIX completion receipt with respect to that building or part.

Further information on BASIX may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Building and Development” and “Energy Efficiency”.


77. Disturbed areas shall be rehabilitated with indigenous plant species landscaped and treated by approved methods of erosion mitigation such as mulching and revegetation with native grasses or other suitable stabilising processes within fifteen days of the completion of works.

Sydney Water

78. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorized Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

Following application, a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate as applicable or whichever may occur first.

A copy of any Trade Waste Agreement required by Sydney Water shall be submitted to Council prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate.

Follow-up Arborist’s Report

79. As part of the ongoing assessment of the trees to be retained, the arborist engaged by the applicant is to assess their health and any impacts suffered by them as a result of the proposed approved development. Findings are to be compiled in a detailed report to be provided to Council at the completion of construction and prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate which documents the following;


result of the damage; and



Page 39

any future or on-going remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the long term viability of the tree/s.

Street Numbering

80. The premises shall be identified by street numbering. Street numbering for the property shall be 1A, 1B Wolger Road.


81. As built drawings of the pipeline are to be forwarded to Council. These are to be certified by Waterplan.

82. The existing drainage easement over the property in favour of the Council is to be extinguished and a new easement created in favour of Council over the new pipeline. The easement shall be created to the satisfaction of Council’s solicitors and all survey and legal costs are to be borne by the applicant.

Easements, Covenants and Restrictions on Title

83. If a structure is built within the easement, a positive covenant shall be created on the title of the allotment requiring that:

the footings of walls within the drainage easement shall be below the invert level of the drainage pipeline;

any structure within the drainage easement shall be designed by a Structural Engineer to ensure that the structure does not place a load over the drainage pipeline;

the owner of the allotment shall bear all costs associated with removing, replacing or maintaining any structure within the drainage easement including any damage that may result to the building as a consequence of such works.

Evidence that the positive covenant has been registered with the Land and Property Information branch of the Department of Lands is to be provided to Council.

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

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

Subdivision

84. A Subdivision Certificate under Section 109C(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be obtained prior to the registration of plans under the Conveyancing Act 1919. All conditions of the development consent must be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Easements, Covenants and Restrictions on Title

85. An easement shall be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 as per the details shown on the approved plan of subdivision. Mosman Council shall be


Page 40

identified as the authority able to modify, vary or release the easement. Evidence that the easement has been registered with the Land and Property Information branch of the Department of Lands is to be provided to Council.

86. Reciprocal rights of carriageway and an easement for services shall be created over the access corridor under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. Mosman Council shall be identified as the authority able to modify, vary or release the easement. Evidence that the reciprocal rights of carriageway and easement for services have been registered with the Land and Property Information branch of the Department of Lands is to be provided to Council.

Sydney Water

87. A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under “Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.


The Section 73 certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

A copy of any Trade Waste Agreement required by Sydney Water shall be submitted by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION

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

Compliance Certificates and Inspection Records

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

Occupation Certificate

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

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


Page 41

DURING OCCUPATION

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

Noise

90. Noise associated with any mechanical plant must not give rise to any one or more of the following:

(a) Transmission of vibration to any place of different occupancy greater than specified in AS 2670.

(b) An indoor sound pressure level in any place of different occupancy (and/or public place) greater than 3dB above the L90 background level or greater than 5dB at the boundary of any affected property in any octave band from 31.5 Hz to 8,000 Hz centre frequencies inclusive between the hours of 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 p.m. daily and 0dB above the L90 background between 10.00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. the following morning. However, when the L90 background levels in frequencies below 63 Hz are equal to or below the threshold of hearing, as specified by the equal loudness contours for octave bands of noise, this subclause does not apply to any such frequencies.

(c) The emission of an "offensive noise" as defined under the Protection of the Environment (Operations) Act 1997.

The method of measurement of vibration in (a) and sound levels in (b), (c) must be carried out in accordance with AS 2973 for vibration measurements, AS 1055 for outdoor sound level measurements and AS 2107 for indoor sound level measurements.

Landscape Maintenance

91. Landscaping provided shall be maintained for the life of the development. Where vegetation approved as part of this consent dies, it must be replaced with new landscaping that achieves a similar height and form to that approved under the landscape plan forming part of this consent.

Noxious Weeds

92. To prevent the spread of undesirable and invasive species and to ensure the preservation of urban bushland, all noxious weeds shall be removed and continually suppressed. A list of noxious weeds may be obtained from Council or viewed on its web site at http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au and then under “Environment” and “Weeds”.

ADVICE / NOTES

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

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

(ii) Section 82A of the Act provides for an applicant to request Council to review its determination excepting applications made on behalf of the Crown or applications in respect of designated development, integrated development or a complying



Page 42

development certificate. The request for review must be made within 12 months of the date of determination or prior to appeal being heard by the Land and Environment Court. A decision on a review may not be further reviewed under section 82A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

telecommunications infrastructure.

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

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

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

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

(x) Occupants of all new dwellings approved since 1998 are not eligible to participate in Council’s residential parking scheme. If a parking scheme exists in front of the property, occupants must either rely on off street parking or abide by signed parking restrictions.

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

(xii) Following the issue of the Occupation Certificate an inspection fee of $140.00 (per inspection) is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028 in order to release the footpath security deposit.

Note: Fees will be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index and the actual amount to be paid will be determined at the date of payment. You may contact Council on 9978 4111 prior to payment to confirm current figures.

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS A4 Plans


Page 43

EP/58 23 Holt Avenue

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.239.1

PROPOSAL: Section 82A Review - Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising ground floor rear family room extension, new first floor addition and replacement of existing rear flat roof with pitched roof.

REPORTING OFFICER: Duncan Livingstone, Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 18 December 2009 (Downtime 0 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Confirm determination

LOCALITY MAP

2

2

3 2

D

P

1057

732

321

DP 3909

1

2

DP

663

535

2

DP

965

713

A 47B

D

P

4415

72

41B

DP

590

510

64 6365

DP

125

6

D

P

4446

88

45

4948474644

DP 3909

DP 3909

1

39

A1424140

666768697071DP 3909

DP 17506

G

1BCDEF

DP

DP

9DP

DP

D

38

434241403937

137113534

111175 DP

167

471

DP

924

196

DP

924

952

DP

925

217

393831351

DP 220739

DP

527

332

DP

748

726

DP 3909

33

34 35

DP

965

713

DP

390

9

2

1 17879 D

P 9

0806

7

DP

927

344

DP 3909

3311

DP

923

699

DP

390

93

623

5

1 80

11

1

4527

78D

P 9

004

75D

P 9

2648

9

33320

D

P

5688

14

7

31 29 27 25 23 21

14 12

19

7

17 15 13 11 9

18 16 14 12 10 8

18

26 24 22 20 18A16

30 28 26 24 22 20

35

41 41A 39 3733

19

29 27 25 23 21A 21

30

3840 36 34 3228

40 38 36

42

34 32

14A

49 47 45 43

31

41 39 37 35 33

43

57 55 53A 53

464844

33B

33

4246A46 44

BA

RD

WE

LL

LN

1)

SPENCER ROAD

HOLT AVENUE


Page 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject Section 82A Review of Determination does not involve any change to the plans that were previously refused. The applicant has not addressed the concerns raised nor undertaken design changes as suggested in the original assessment. Consequently this report is substantially the same as that which was written for the original application and the recommendation is unchanged.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the northern side of Holt Avenue, between Bardwell Lane and Cowles Road. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 9.145m to Holt Avenue. The site falls 2.2m to the south at an average gradient of 5.8%. The site presently contains a single storey detached dwelling house with an expansive hardstand space within the front setback. Surrounding development consists of detached and semi detached residential dwellings up to two storeys. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND On 25 August 2009 Development Application 8.2009.239.1 was lodged with Council. The application was notified between 2 September 2009 and 17 September 2009. On 26 November 2009 Development Application 8.2009.239.1 was refused under Delegated Authority. The reasons for refusal are surmised below: SEPP 1 Objection Not Supported 1. The proposal does not comply with Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 and the requested

variation to Councils floorspace ratio standard does not demonstrate that compliance with the control is unreasonable or unnecessary. .

Incompatible with the Prevailing Development Pattern 2. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 11 of MLEP 1998. (2a3) Zone Objectives

Dot Point five (5). 3. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 13(1)(c) and Clause 13(1)(d). Objectives of

Councils height development standard.


Page 45

Incompatible within the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area 4. The proposal does not satisfy Clause 32(1)(a) of MLEP 1998. 5. The proposal is not consistent with Objectives O2, O3 & O4 and with Planning

Guidelines P1, P2 & P3 within Section 5.3 of MRDCP. Siting and Scale 6. The proposal does not satisfy Objective O6, & O8 and Planning Guidelines P12 &

P16 contained in Section 4.2 of MRDCP. Streetscape 7. The proposal does not satisfy Objectives O1 & O3 and Planning Guidelines P5, P6 &

P8 contained in Section 5.1 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls 8. The proposal does not satisfy the listed ‘Existing Character Elements’ Dot Point 7 and

the ‘Desired Future Character Objectives’ Dot Points 4 and 5 contained in Section 6.10 of MRDCP.

On 18 December 2009 the applicant lodged a request for review pursuant to Section 82A. The proposal assessed under this application remains the same as that which was originally refused. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Ground floor rear additions with associated new openings and changes to roof; New first floor addition with associated new openings; Reconfiguration of existing rear pergola; and Internal alterations. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006


Page 46


Zoning: 2(a3)

Site Area 450m2 345.6m2 (no change) N/A

Building Height 8.5m 8.34m Yes

Wall Height 7.2m 6.37m Yes


Gross Floor Area

Existing 136m2 N/A

Proposed 60.4m2 N/A

Total 196.4m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5 : 1 0.568:1 (+ 13.6%) No (SEPP 1)

Landscaped Area

Existing 81.6m2 92m2 N/A

Proposed 117.8m2 92m2 No


Setbacks – additions

Ground floor – west

First floor – east

First floor – west

0.9m

1.5m

1.5m

1.2m

0.75m – 1.5m

2.15m

Yes

Partial

Yes



Satisfactory Yes

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) was submitted with the original application (this is still applicable to the subject Section 82A Review) requesting variation to the following development standard prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio The proposal has gross floor area of 196.4m2 and a floorspace ratio of 0.568:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.5:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 23.6m2 or 13.6%.


Page 47

The objectives for the maximum floorspace ratio standard are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives:

a. to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality, and

The scale of the first floor addition is incongruous with the housing

characteristics of the locality. The majority of dwellings with first floor additions on Holt Avenue achieve the following first floor designs: - An in roof addition by extending the main roof plane away from the

street, providing for dormer windows; or - a gabled roof addition behind the main roof plane facing the street the

main ridge of which runs in an east west direction; or - utilisation of the existing roof volume that achieves a sense of

separation from the main hipped roof facing the street, thus preserving the heritage conservation area and the streetscape.

The proposed first floor addition fails to achieve consistency with these prevailing and appropriate first floor designs. The addition does not preserve the existing hipped roof facing the street and results in a dwelling which is incongruous in design with the housing characteristics of the locality.

b. to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of

landscaping and containing urban runoff, and The proposal does not involve significant excavation.

c. to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development.

The proposal fails to minimise bulk and scale in that the upper level

addition is disproportionate to the ground floor of the host building, providing for a bulky addition with unnecessary height. This is evidenced through the overall height of the addition which is approximately 1m higher than neighbouring dwellings to the east and west.

Bulk and scale is not minimised in that the additions are located forward of the main hipped roof facing the street and do not present as an in roof addition nor does the design extend an existing roof plane. A first floor addition which provided for one of the aforementioned designs outcomes would achieve a reduction in perceived bulk and scale.

Given that the incompatible design of the addition is as a result of a departure with Councils floorspace ratio development standard, the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to the development standard does not satisfy the objectives of the standard. To vary the standard in this particular case would be inconsistent with the objectives of Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act. The SEPP No.1 objection is not well founded and cannot be supported.


Page 48

5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The original application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a3) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development does not satisfy the following objective of the 2(a3) Zone: Ensure that development is of a height and scale which complements existing buildings

and streetscapes. The first floor addition results in a dwelling which is approximately 1m higher than neighbouring dwellings to the east and west and is not in keeping with the scale/design of the host building and the prevailing development pattern. Section 82A of the Act enables Council to change or confirm its earlier determination. The proposal as lodged is permissible pursuant to section 82A requirements, it being noted that: (a) the earlier determination was not for an application relating to Crown development,

designated development, integrated development or a complying development certificate;

(b) the application was lodged within 12 months of the earlier determination; (c) there were no amendments to the proposal;


Page 49

(d) the application was notified in accordance with Council's Notification DCP; (e) the one submission received has been addressed at section 7.0 of this report; and (f) there has not been a previous section 82A review request for the application. Height Notwithstanding that the proposal complies with the relevant numeric development standards for height the merit based assessment of the first floor addition has concluded that the proposal is inconsistent with the following objectives contained in Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998:

(c) to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing building in terms of height and pitched roof form, and

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

The first floor addition and its central forward location within the footprint of the host building results in a dwelling which is excessive in height, bulk and scale. The addition is assessed as being of excessive bulk relative to the host building and is unacceptable. An addition which is located further away from the street or presents as an in roof addition would result in a first floor which achieves better compatibility with height, bulk and scale. In this context the proposal fails on its merits. Floorspace Ratio The applicant has sought to vary the maximum floorspace ratio development standard and has provided the following justification: The proposed first floor is not extensive and the bathrooms and bedrooms are modest in

size; The extent of the proposed additional floor area is minimal; and The objectives are met in that the proposal will be compatible with the housing

characteristics of the locality. The SEPP 1 objection has been assessed in section 5.2.1 of this report. Landscaped Area The proposed additional floor area creates a deficiency with regard to Councils minimum landscaped area requirement contained in Clause 15(2) of MLEP 1998. This non compliance is assessed as reasonable in that the proposal does not involve building footprint extensions over existing landscaped areas. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed development will not be readily visible from either the waterway or foreshore, as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and the vegetation and development that exists between the site and the waterway. Excavation No material excavation is proposed.


Page 50

Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item. The site is located within the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area. Clause 32(1) of MLEP 1998 contains heritage conservation objectives which are relevant to the subject application. The proposal is assessed as inconsistent with the following objective.

(b) to ensure that any development does not adversely affect the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas and their settings, and

The design of the first floor addition has been assessed as inconsistent with the prevailing development pattern in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. In this respect the addition would impact on the character and scale of development in the conservation area. Councils Heritage Advisor has provided comment in relation to the subject application. The comments are included in Section 6.0 of this report. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item however is within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The additions at the ground floor do not change the rear setback of the dwelling and are acceptable. The ground and first floor levels generally comply with the minimum side setback guidelines with the exception of the built form associated with the internal stair. The proximity of the additions to side boundaries do not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbour amenity. The scale of the first floor addition is assessed as inconsistent with the following objectives and guidelines contained in Section 4.2 of MRDCP.


Page 51

Objective O6 – To have a scale of development which is not excessive and is consistent with the existing or desired future character of the area.

Objective O8 – To have a traditional scale in areas of heritage sensitivity

managed. Planning Guideline P12 – Development must be consistent with the objectives and

requirements for Floorspace Ratio (FSR) of Clause 14 of the Mosman LEP 1998.

Planning Guideline P16 – Building form should be compatible with the prevailing

development pattern and character in terms of overall shape and articulation of form.

The built form is incongruous within its setting with regard to overall shape and articulation of form due to its considerable presence as viewed from the street. Views The proposal will not give rise to adverse impacts on views to, from or across the site. The owners of 35 Spencer Road to the north of the proposed development have raised concern with regard to the height of the addition and its impact on views. A site inspection of 35 Spencer Road disclosed that the proposed development would not unreasonably impact on the current water views enjoyed from 35 Spencer Road. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed development is assessed as inconsistent with the following objectives and planning guidelines contained in Section 5.1 of MRDCP.

Objective O1 – To have development of a scale and appearance which is in keeping with the street and neighbouring character.

Objective O3 – To have streetscapes which are compatible with and support

the desired future character objectives of the townscape areas. Planning Guideline P5 – The design of alterations and additions should demonstrate

architectural unity with the existing building. The extension or replication of roof pitches and the matching of external finishes is encouraged

Planning Guideline P6 – First floor additions should be well integrated into the design of

the development to avoid a bulk/scale relationship that would dominate the street, neighbouring building or the existing building.

Planning Guideline P8 – Development should respect the defined desired future

character of the townscape area as outlined in Section 6. The first floor addition does not demonstrate architectural unity with the host building in that it interrupts the main hipped roof of the dwelling facing the street with the first floor street facing bay window. The centrally located addition is not in scale with the host building and in being forward of the main hipped roof creates unnecessary bulk as viewed from the street.


Page 52

Heritage Items and Conservation Areas The proposal is assessed as inconsistent with the following Objectives and Planning Guidelines contained in Section 5.3 of MRDCP:

Objective O2 – To have the streetscape context and curtilage of heritage items and conservation areas maintained.

Objective O3 – To have the streetscape character of a conservation area

maintained through appropriate design, built form, architectural style and landscaping and to ensure any infill development also respects the character of the streetscape.

Objective O4 – To have any modification undertaken with a proper knowledge

of the heritage significance of the item or conservation area. Planning Guideline P1 – For additions, be consistent with the original in terms of

massing, scale, and proportion of the existing fabric. Planning Guideline P2 – Use similar scale and bulk to the original building to ensure that

new structure does not overwhelm. It is preferable that any new building should be smaller in size than the original.

Planning Guideline P3 – Site new additions carefully. They should be located at the site

or rear, so as to avoid changes to the street façade and therefore minimise the impact of change.

The proposals inconsistency with these objectives and guidelines has previously been addressed in Sections and 5.2.1, 5.2.5 and 5.3.1 of this report. Privacy Windows at the proposed first floor level may result in overlooking into the first floor habitable rooms of neighbouring properties to the east and west. In the event of approval appropriate privacy measures such as non-openable bottom sashes with translucent glazing to first floor side windows may ameliorate overlooking impacts. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal is not supported. Overshadowing The proposal will not give rise to adverse impacts upon solar access to adjoining properties. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Belmont townscape. The proposal is assessed as inconsistent with the following existing character elements and desired future character objectives contained in Section 6.10 of MRDCP. Existing Character Elements

The area has a consistent scale and form of development, with generally small low rise dwelling houses orientated to the street. Semi detached dwellings is a dominate form of housing;


Page 53

Desired Future Character Objections Maintain

The heritage significance of the Keston Avenue, Orlando, Holt Estate and The Crescent conservation areas through well designed and unobtrusive garages/carports, alterations in keeping with the character of these conservation areas and the use of unpainted brick work.

Encourage

Alterations and additions which respect the scale, form and proportion of the host building. First floor additions in smaller medium developments should consider the use of attic space;

The design of the first floor addition is assessed as incompatible in terms of scale and form within the streetscape. Accordingly the assessment finds the scheme to be inconsistent with the Belmont Townscape controls. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. In the event of approval an appropriate condition will be included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

The proposal represents an unacceptable visual bulk in the streetscape of the HCA and should not be approved in this form. The design in attempting to take advantage of potential vistas has ignored design guidelines to reduce change to the principle façade and limit impact on the streetscape. The same proposal pushed further back on the building would result in less impact. The lowering if the pitching point for the 1st floor would also reduce bulk.

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 12 January 2010 and 27 January 2010. One (1) submission was received from the following property: 35 Spencer Road; Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: As the proposal involves no changes the previous concerns in relation to view loss as

a result of the first floor addition remains; Comment: The assessment of the previous proposal ascertained that the proposed development would not unreasonably impact on the current water views enjoyed from 35 Spencer Road.


Page 54

8.0 CONCLUSION The application has been assessed against the relevant planning guidelines and policies. The scheme is unacceptable as it results in a poor streetscape outcome in the heritage conservation area and a development of excessive bulk and scale. The assessment finds that the originally submitted SEPP No:1 objection to the floorspace ratio development standard cannot be supported. It is recommended that Council confirm its previous determination by refusal of Development Application 8.2009.403.1. The reasons for refusal are contained in the recommendation. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Liddy and Associates. The owner is Michelle Lingard. The estimated value of works is $279,000.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council confirm its determination for refusal of Development Application No. 8.2009.239.1 with the following grounds remaining applicable: A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the maximum floorspace ratio within Clause 14(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is not well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is not supported.

B. That Development Application No. 8.2009.239.1 be refused on the following grounds: SEPP 1 Objection Not Supported 1. The proposal does not satisfy the numeric standard and objectives of Clause 14 of

Mosman LEP 1998 in that the floorspace ratio exceeds the maximum permitted. The objection lodged under SEPP No.1 to vary this standard does not satisfactorily justify the variation from the standard, and is unsatisfactory.

Incompatible with the Prevailing Development Pattern 2. The proposal does not satisfy an objective of the 2(a3) zone specially dot point 5 of

Clause 11. The first floor addition results in a dwelling which is disproportional in scale/design to the existing host building and the prevailing development pattern of the streetscape.

3. The proposal does not satisfy Clause 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of MLEP 1998 in that the

first floor addition and its central forward location within the footprint of the host building results in dwelling which is unnecessary in height, bulk and scale.


Page 55

Incompatible within the Holt Estate Heritage Conservation Area 4. The proposal does not satisfy Clause 32(1)(a) of MLEP 1998 in that the first floor

addition is inconsistent with the prevailing heritage development pattern in terms of overall shape and articulation of form.

5. The proposal is not consistent with Objectives O2, O3 & O4 and Planning Guidelines

P1, P2 & P3 within Section 5.3 of MRDCP 1998. The proposed additions are incongruous when compared with first floor additions within the conservation area resulting in dominance on the host building and unreasonable impacts on the heritage character of Holt Avenue.

Siting and Scale 6. The proposal does not satisfy Objective O6, & O8 and Planning Guidelines P12 &

P16 contained in Section 4.2 of MRDCP 1998. The first floor addition is not compatible with first floor additions in the locality with regard to overall shape and articulation of form.

Streetscape 7. The proposal does not satisfy Objectives O1 & O3 and Planning Guidelines P5, P6 &

P8 contained in Section 5.1 of MRDCP. The first floor addition does not demonstrate architectural unity with the host building in that it interrupts the main hipped roof plane facing the street with the proposed street facing first floor bay window.

Townscape Controls 8. The proposal does not satisfy the listed ‘Existing Character Elements’ Dot Point 7 and

the ‘Desired Future Character Objectives’ Dot Points 4 and 5 contained in Section 6.10 of MRDCP 1998. The design of the first floor addition is assessed as incompatible within the heritage streetscape and does not respect the scale, form and proportion of the host building.



Page 56

EP/59 28 Ruby Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.357.1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing dwelling house, garage and swimming pool and erection of a new dwelling with basement garage, front fence, swimming pool and spa

REPORTING OFFICER: Sarah Winnacott, Executive Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 18 November 2009 (Downtime 24 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

LOCALITY MAP

2

1

28

A

DP

DP 666706DP 1103281

1

DP 44

DP

935

230

1

3A

1B

1

DP 900244

22

1

DP 901798

DP 901799

DP

103

8320

52

512

DP 300

109

DP 923524

DP 923525

22

1

DP

104

430

DP

29

DP 1085056

DP 805

690

DP

813

252

DP 920124

DP

110

8508

29

31

B

3

DP 3715

DP 3715

DP 921673

A

1

2

1

511

1

2

DP

137

440

DP

137

374

DP 901796DP 656293

130

1

DP 921287

32

1

1

A

DP 920016

DP

930

068

DP 945835

DP 959630DP 983943

DP 920294

1

1

DP

102

538

DP

105

546

DP

119

441

DP 921650

DP 928064

DP 881612

DP 901720

1

1

11

A

1

50 38

DP 306832

DP 435443

DP 3443032

DP 304041

DP 376759

1

11

45

21

46

1

DP 667111

DP 178068

963

409

DP 664749

4A

1

D

6

1

B

SP 42521

DP

175

607

SP 12445

47

B

44

1

DP 952861

DP 658300

DP 660968

D

1

A

P 8397

4

4

39

40

40

42

3544

37

38

27

2

13

5

23

23

21

24

462527

2628

2

28

610

8

9

25

75

11

12

1517

5860

3739

16

19

19

5250

44

4846

5456

2931

3335

234

36

21

21 4042

3A

60

3

1

5

JAM

ES

K

ING

ST

ST

NE

W

LNST

MIL

TO

N

PR

INC

UNION

PR

INC

E

R

UB

Y

PR

INC

E A

LBE

RT


Page 57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal comprises demolition of the existing dwelling, swimming pool and spa and garage, site works and construction of a new dwelling, front fence, swimming pool and site landscaping. No change is proposed to the existing tennis court. The proposal does not comply with the development standards relating to height and floorspace ratio. The height of the development is attributed to the steep topography of the site. The non-compliance with the floorspace ratio is attributed to the large basement garage which provides parking for four (4) vehicles and vehicular manoeuvring, this garage is proposed to be excavated into the site and does not contribute to the bulk and scale of the development. This assessment finds that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties subject to the recommended conditions of consent.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the western side of Ruby Street, between Union Street and Thompson Street. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 71.18m to Ruby Street and 48.59m to New Lane. The site has a maximum fall of 14 metres to the west. The site presently contains a dwelling house, detached garage, swimming pool and tennis court. Surrounding development consists of dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip Potential Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The development history of the site has been researched, there is no background information of particular relevance to this application. The subject application was lodged on 18 November 2009 and was notified between 1 December 2009 and 16 December 2009. On 5 February 2010 Council wrote to the applicant raising a number of issues with the development. The applicant has submitted amended plans which were notified between 2 March 2010 and 17 March 2010. These plans are the subject of this assessment.


Page 58

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal comprises demolition of the existing dwelling, swimming pool and garage, site works and construction of a new dwelling. The new dwelling is proposed to contain the following: Basement Level: Basement parking for four (4) vehicles, garbage store, lift and stair. Lower Ground Level: Rumpus room, media, foyer, gym, verandah and terrace. Ground Level: Sitting/dining room, study, cloak room, 2 x WC, TV room,

kitchen/family room, toy room, laundry, pantry, lift, stair and verandah. First Level: 5 bedrooms, ensuite, dressing room, WIR, 4 bathrooms, 3 verandas,

study, lift and stair. Entry Level: Entrance porch, lift and stair. The proposal also includes the construction of a new front fence to Ruby Street and swimming pool and site landscaping. The existing tennis court is proposed to be retained unaltered. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 2(a1) Residential

Site Area 700m2 1792.3m2 Yes

Building Height 8.5m 9.68m (+13.8%) No (SEPP 1)

Wall Height 7.2m 9.62m (+33.6%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys (+50%) No (SEPP 1)


Page 59

LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Gross Floor Area 859.9m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.439 : 1 0.479 : 1 (+9.2%) No (SEPP 1)

Landscaped Area 1926m2 598m2 No

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) N/A N/A N/A


Setbacks

Basement - north

- south

Lower Ground floor - north

- south

Ground floor - north

- south

First floor - north

- south

Entry level - north

- south

2.0m

2.0m

0.9m

0.9m

1.5m – 3.0m

1.5m – 3.0m

3.0m

3.0m

3.0m

3.0m

20.5m

3.015m

7.1m

3.015m

6.4m

2.6m - 3.015m

6.4m

2.7m - 3.015m

20.85m

10.15m

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Swimming Pool - south 2.0m 2.0m Yes

Height Plane 45o from ground level along southern boundary

72 0 No

Parking On merit 4 spaces Yes

Fencing Height 1.2m 1.5m No



> 2 hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height Clause 13(2) Maximum Two Storeys Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio


Page 60

Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height The proposal has a maximum building height of 9.68m which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 1.18m or 13.8%. Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height The proposal has a maximum wall height of 9.62m which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 2.42m or 33.6%. Clause13(3) Maximum of Two Storeys The proposal has up to three (3) storeys which exceeds the development standard of two (2) storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by one storey or 50%. The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views,

Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on public and private

views. The profiles that have been erected identify that private views will be retained over and above the proposed new dwelling for properties on the high side of Ruby Street.


surrounding foreshores, Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The proposed development will have a minimal visual impact when viewed from

the harbour and surrounding foreshores by virtue of the distance of the site from the harbour and the other dwellings and landscaping that exist between the site and the harbour.


buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form;

Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The streetscape appearance of the development is reasonable when considered

in the context of surrounding development with the development being low set to the street and the majority of the development presenting as less than one storey in height to Ruby Street; and

The proposal incorporates a pitched roof form consistent with surrounding development.


existing residential areas. Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum of Two Storeys This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a

reasonable impact on adjoining properties in terms of view sharing, overshadowing and visual privacy, subject to the recommended conditions;


Page 61

When viewed from Ruby Street the scale of the development will not be uncharacteristic of other development on the low side of Ruby Street; and

The new dwelling is proposed to have substantial setbacks to the rear lane, and will have a reasonable impact on the New Lane streetscape.

Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a floorspace ratio of 0.479:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.439:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 73.1 square metres or 9.2%. The objectives for the maximum floorspace ratio standard are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives: (a) to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics

of the locality:

The scale of the proposal is reasonable when considered in the context of surrounding development with the development being low set to the street and the majority of the development presenting as less than one storey in height to Ruby Street.

The design of the proposal will sit well within the streetscape and will not appear visually dominant or excessive in height when compared with other development within the street; and

The scale of the development will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties as it is provided with substantial setbacks to the side boundaries and the rear lane and the landscaping proposed to surround the development will soften the appearance of the development when viewed from adjoining properties.

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

landscaping and containing urban run-off:

The proposed excavation is not excessive and will not affect the ability to landscape the site; and

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions of consent to control stormwater overflow from the site.

(c) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development:

The design of the proposed development has had adequate regard to minimising the impacts of privacy, views, and overshadowing on adjoining properties; and

The design of the proposed development will sit well within the Ruby Street streetscape and will not appear visually dominant or excessive in height when compared with other development within the street.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to each of the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standard and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standard is consistent with “the proper


Page 62

management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The works are defined as a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Minimum Lot Size The site complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the erection of a dwelling house in the residential 2(a1) zone.


Page 63

Height The applicant has sought to vary the maximum building height, wall height and number of storeys development standards at Clause 13(2) and (3) of MLEP 1998 and has provided the following justification: The contravention of the two storey height control is primarily a result of the steep

topography of the land and is limited only where the ground and first floor level overlaps the undercroft area;

The proposal will not impact on the views of any of the adjoining properties; The proposed has been designed to fit comfortably on the site and follows the contours

down the slope; The roof has been modulated and is broken up into three distinct segments and the

selection of materials and external finishes will enhance the articulation of the building; The proposal is compatible with existing buildings in terms of height and roof form; and The removal of the garage with flat roof will enhance the streetscape. Floorspace Ratio The applicant has sought to vary the floorspace ratio development standard at Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 and has provided the following justification: The definition of gross floor area allows two carparking spaces per dwelling and any

additional spaces are to be included as part of the floor space of the dwelling. Apart from the additional carparking and manoeuvring area, the proposal fully complies with the FSR standard;

The garage is underground and does not contribute to the bulk of the development; The scale of the development is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality; The area of the garage and driveway will be either landscaped or occupied by the new

dwelling; and There is more than enough area on the site for the purposes of landscaping and

containing urban run-off. Landscaped Area The proposed development does not comply with the landscaped area requirement of MLEP 1998. The formulation of the landscaped area calculation under Clause 15 of MLEP 1998 is unhelpful in establishing a reasonable yield of landscaped area for large allotments. In this regard the formula requires 1926 square metres of landscaped area to be provided on the site, which is greater than the area of the site. The proposal has a landscaped area of 598 square metres or 33.3% of the site area. This calculation does not include the area of the tennis court which is grass and has an area of 486 square metres. In addition to this, 79 square metres of landscaping is proposed to be located over slab and beneath overhangs of the built form. Reasonable amounts of landscaping are proposed at the front, rear and sides of the dwelling house. The proposed development satisfactorily meets the objectives relating to landscaped area outlined at Clause 15(1) of MLEP 1998. Council’s Landscape Designer has reviewed the proposed development and has recommended approval subject to conditions. The landscaping proposed as part of this application is reasonable.


Page 64

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 indicates that Council must not consent to the erection of a building on land in the foreshore scenic protection area unless an assessment has been made having regard to the objectives of the Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed development will not be visually dominant when viewed from the waterway as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and other development and vegetation that exists between the site and the waterway. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural water course. Excavation MLEP 1998 indicates that the consent of Council is required where a development has the effect of materially altering the shape or natural form of the land and as part of a development, control should be made of soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with landform modification. Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that effective measures are used to minimise soil erosion and sedimentation loss resulting from the proposed development. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection Map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item. The site is within the Bradleys Head Road Conservation Area. The Statement of Heritage Impact submitted with the development application has been taken into consideration as part of this assessment. Advice from Council’s Heritage Advisor is that the proposal will have a reasonable impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area. The proposed development is consistent with the heritage conservation objectives outlined at Clause 32(1) of MLEP 1998. Following the advice of Council’s Heritage Advisor it is recommended that the proposal will have a reasonable impact on heritage significance of the conservation area.


Page 65

Heritage in Vicinity The site has frontage to Ruby Street and New Lane both of which are identified in MLEP 1998 as items of local heritage significance. The site is in the vicinity of 27 Prince Albert Street which is also identified as an item of local heritage significance. The statement of significance for New Lane indicates that the small laneways within Mosman's original Estate Subdivisions are an important aspect of the historic urban structure of the Municipality. In many cases these lanes display pleasing visual characteristics created by a combination of walls, vegetation, vistas and the backdrop of surrounding properties. The statement of significance for Ruby Street states that Mosman's divided roads are integral to the Municipality's visual character and sense of place. Built as a utilitarian response to the steep harbourside topography, they reflect, in their fabric and construction technology, the development of Mosman's suburban structure. The large collection of these features makes Mosman instantly and uniquely recognisable. The statement of significance for 27 Prince Albert Street states that it is one of a number of fine Federation style residences in Prince Albert Street, it has aesthetic significance because of its imposing terraced setting and interesting composition on a formed and massive sandstone plinth. Clause 37 of MLEP 1998 requires that when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider: (a) the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance, curtilage

and setting of the item, and (b) the impact of the proposed development on any significant view to or from the

heritage item. The proposed development will have a satisfactory impact when the above are considered. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item however is within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative.


Page 66

5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale MRDCP requires that if a new development is to take place in a street with an established pattern of development, new buildings should be set back a similar distance from the street and that where there is no established pattern of development, front setbacks will be considered on their merits. Some concern was raised with regard to the covered entryway accessed from Ruby Street and its proximity to the street as it projected forward of the front building alignment. The applicant has amended the design so that the covered entryway is set back in line with the new dwelling. The increased setback will assist to reduce the visual impact of this aspect of the development when viewed from Ruby Street. The proposed development complies with the minimum side setback requirement of MRDCP. The setback of the proposed development from the rear boundary responds to site features and cross views of neighbouring properties. The setback from the rear boundary is reasonable. The proposed development does not comply with the building envelope requirement to the southern side boundary. The intent of the building envelope provision is to minimise the effects of overshadowing on adjoining development. This assessment has found that the proposal will have a reasonable impact on the solar access of adjoining properties. The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and view loss. The proposed development will be compatible with the prevailing development pattern in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. Views Objection has been raised by three property owners on the high side of Ruby Street (23, 25 and 27 Ruby Street in relation to view loss from their properties. The applicant was requested to erect profiles to demonstrate the impact of the proposed development. The profiles have been surveyed as accurate. An inspection of the profiles has been undertaken from each of the three properties. These properties enjoy sweeping district views in a westerly direction. These views also include the city skyline, Harbour, Opera House, Harbour Bridge and North Sydney skyline. These views are obtained over existing dwellings/garages and vegetation on the low side of Ruby Street from living areas, bedrooms and private open space areas. The majority of the proposed development is set below Ruby Street and will not be visible from the properties on the high side of Ruby Street. The area of concern for the neighbours is the roof form and the entry pavilion which provides pedestrian access to/from Ruby Street. The views from 27 Ruby Street over the subject property are heavily obscured by two existing mature trees. The inspection of 27 Ruby Street identified that the profiles were not visible from that property. The profiles represent that the new dwelling is low set to the street and will not unreasonably impact on the existing views from 27 Ruby Street. As part of the landscaping of the site, one of the two mature trees that currently obscure the neighbours


Page 67

views is proposed to be removed. It is likely that the removal of this tree will improve the North Sydney skyline views from 27 Ruby Street. The entry pavilion will impact on the outlook from 23 and 25 Ruby Street, however the impact is not significant as these properties will continue to enjoy sweeping district views. The views of the city skyline, Harbour, Opera House, Harbour Bridge and North Sydney skyline will not be impacted by the development. The impact is created by the additional built form within the foreground of these views. Whilst this impact is not favourable, built form within the foreground of these views is not uncommon with a number of properties on the low side of Ruby Street having garages and roof forms which also interrupt this outlook. View loss from these properties is assessed as reasonable. The proposal will have a reasonable impact on public views. Landscaping Refer to MLEP 1998 landscaped area assessment. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed development will have a reasonable streetscape appearance to both Ruby Street and the rear lane. The external finishes of the new dwelling are proposed to be rendered and painted masonry with slate roof. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring compliance with the MRDCP requirement that colours and external finishes be sympathetic to neighbourhood character and contribute to the overall impact of the development. The proposal incorporates a new front fence on the Ruby Street frontage which has a height of 1.48 metres and will be constructed of sandstone with metal infills. MRDCP requires that front fences should be no more than 1.2 metres above footpath level however does allow for fences up to 1.8 metres in height provided the scale or heritage value of the property are appropriate for a higher fence and if that part of the fence above 1.2 metres in height is open in style. Council’s Heritage Advisor was asked to comment specifically on the design of the front fence with regard to its impact on the conservation area and has found it to be reasonable. The proposed fence on the Ruby Street frontage will have a reasonable streetscape impact. The proposal involves the retention of the existing sandstone wall and tennis court fence to the rear lane. Car-parking Access MRDCP does not specify a minimum or maximum parking provision for dwelling houses. A four car basement garage is proposed to be integrated into the development. Four car parking spaces is a reasonable supply of car parking for the proposed development. The existing development has a double garage accessed from Ruby Street. The basement garage is proposed to be accessed from New Lane and will not negatively impact on the streetscape of New Lane. The basement car park incorporates a turning circle which will allow vehicles to exit the site in a forward direction. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development and use of New Lane and has raised no issue with regard to additional traffic impact within the lane.


Page 68

Heritage Items and Conservation Areas Refer to MLEP 1998 heritage assessment. Privacy and Security Concern has been raised by the owners of a number of adjoining properties in Union Street in relation to visual privacy impacts. MRDCP requires that visual privacy impacts be mitigated for habitable room windows where the level of separation is less than 9 metres. The proposed development has a setback of 6.8 metres to the northern side boundary. Following the privacy concerns raised, the applicant has provided obscure glazing to the bedroom and bathroom windows on the upper level. Overlooking from the windows at this level will not be unreasonable and will achieve compliance with the MRDCP requirement. The proposal incorporates a verandah accessed from bedrooms and a study at first floor level. This verandah is proposed to have a planter on its northern side. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring that the screen planting within the planter have a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor. The proposal incorporates a raised area to the north of the dwelling which is accessed from living areas. This raised area is approximately 3 metres above the level of the swimming pool on the adjoining property, 8 Union Street. The raised area is proposed to be set back 1.2 metres from the northern side boundary. Screen planting is proposed within the setback area that will achieve a height of 6.0 metres at maturity, which given the level difference near the boundary will be approximately 4.5 metres above the level of the grassed area. Council’s Landscape Designer has advised that these plantings will be able to grow to the intended height in this location. Overlooking from this area into the adjoining Union Street properties will not be unreasonable. Other aspects of the proposal will have a reasonable visual privacy impact on adjoining properties to the north. The proposal will have a reasonable visual privacy impact on the adjoining property to the south, given the level of separation proposed and the established landscaping that exists. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation to control the acoustic output from any plant incorporated into the development. Crime Prevention The proposed development complies with the objectives and the relevant planning guidelines of the crime prevention requirement of MRDCP. Sunlight, Daylight and Over-shadowing MRDCP requires that buildings should be sited and designed to maximise sunlight to north facing windows of living areas and principal areas of open space and that north facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space should not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Whilst the dwelling house at 26 Ruby Street is located directly to the south of the subject property, the shadow cast from the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the solar access of adjoining properties, compliant with the MRDCP requirement.


Page 69

Site Facilities Adequate site facilities are provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation As discussed in this report, a BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application. The BASIX SEPP indicates that this policy overrides any DCP that would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development including the concept stormwater plan and has advised that the development is acceptable subject to the conditions that have been recommended. Site Management and Excavation A dilapidation report would be required for adjoining dwelling houses/structures. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the relevant requirements of MRDCP site management and excavation are adhered to. Waste Management The applicant has submitted a waste management plan with the development application. The proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the outcomes and planning guidelines relating to waste management. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposal has had adequate regard for the desired future character objectives for the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. Tennis Court The proposal originally included raising the existing tennis court by 1.0 metre and new tennis court fencing. Following concerns raised by Council in relation to the proposed raising of the tennis court, the applicant has deleted this from the scheme. The proposal is now for the retention of the existing tennis court and fencing on its northern and western sides. New fencing is proposed on the southern side of the tennis court. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure compliance of the new fence with the MRDCP requirement that fencing have a maximum height of 3.6m above court level and be constructed in black elements with black plastic coated mesh. Swimming Pool The swimming pool and spa complies with the 2.0 metre landscape setback requirement to boundaries, with a 2.0 metre landscape setback proposed to the northern boundary. The swimming pool and spa do not comply with the requirement that pools be located at or near existing ground level. The swimming pool is proposed in a similar location and height above ground level as the existing swimming pool to be demolished.


Page 70

The landscape plan identifies that two established trees are proposed to be retained near the northern boundary in the vicinity of the swimming pool. These existing plantings are proposed to be supplemented with additional plantings capable of attaining a height of 6.0 meters at maturity. The proposed swimming pool and spa will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk or privacy. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation requiring compliance with the following requirements of MRDCP: (a) that any lighting of the swimming pool be designed so as to avoid glare and light spill

onto adjoining recreation areas, habitable rooms and public spaces; (b) that the swimming pool equipment be located in a sound proof container which is

positioned so that there is no change to the noise level at any point at the boundary with another property including a public place;

(c) that the swimming pool be fenced in accordance with The Swimming Pools Act 1992; and

(d) that drainage and overflow from the swimming pool be directed to the sewer. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) MTDCP does not specify a minimum or maximum parking provision for dwelling houses. A four car basement garage is proposed to be incorporated into the development. Four car parking spaces is a reasonable supply of car parking for the proposed development. Refer to MRDCP assessment for further discussion in relation to the basement garage. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer made the following comments:

“Ten (10) trees are proposed for removal, with 9 being 5 or over and therefore covered by Council’s TPO. Tree removal is approved (trees 2, 3, 5,6,7,8,9,10, 15 and 20) subject to conditions outlined below. Additional canopy trees are required to regain dominance of landscape over built form.”

The conditions recommended by Council’s Landscape Designer are included in the recommendation. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments on 4 December 2009:


Page 71

“The existing house makes a minimal contribution to the wider conservation area and its demolition is not objected to in these circumstances. The new design while not adopting the predominant character of the area will have limited visual impact due to the site configuration. In heritage terms the impact will be relatively low and acceptable”.

Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments on 12 March 2010: “The proposed work is within a conservation area and no statement of heritage impact has been provided or photographs. The proposed fence is generally acceptable as the adjacent heritage item is the street itself which is a divided road”.

Note that Council’s Heritage Advisor is incorrect in stating that no statement of heritage impact had been provided, this document was submitted with the application. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 1 December 2009 and 16 December 2009. Eight (8) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 6 Union Street; 8 Union Street; 10 Union Street; 12 Union Street; 27 Ruby Street; 31 Prince Albert Street; 25 Prince Albert Street; and 1 submission of unknown address. Amended plans were notified between 2 March 2010 and 17 March 2010. Following this notification period four (4) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 8 Union Street; 10 Union Street; 23 Ruby Street 25 Ruby Street 27 Ruby Street; and 25 Prince Albert Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: View loss from 23, 25 and 27 Ruby Street; and Concern that the profiles are incorrect; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to view loss from the properties on the high side of Ruby Street. The profiles have been surveyed by a Surveyor as accurate. The owners of 6 Union Street have raised concern with visual privacy and

overshadowing impact from the proposal and have requested that additional trees be planted on the northern side of the dwelling;


Page 72

The consultant acting on behalf of 8 and 10 Union Street has raised concern with visual privacy impacts on these properties

Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to visual privacy impacts on properties in Union Street. 6 Union Street is located to the north of 28 Ruby Street and the shadow from the proposed development will not impact on this property. The owners of 6 Union Street have raised concern with the demolition of the garage

as this currently serves as a boundary wall with the subject property. The owners of 6 Union Street have indicated they do not want to pay for a new fence;

Comment: The applicant has now amended the design to provide for boundary fencing in lieu of the garage adjacent to 6 Union Street as requested by the neighbours. Any issue regarding who will pay for the fence is a matter between the neighbours. The owners of 12 Union Street have raised concern with the tennis court fencing and

have requested that a 1.8m high masonry wall be provided above the playing surface of the tennis court and that netting be provided to 3 metres above the playing surface and that both be to an approved finish and colour;

Comment: Following concerns by Council in relation to the raising of the tennis court the applicant has deleted this aspect of the proposal. The proposal now involves the retention of the existing tennis court and tennis court fence on its northern side (where it adjoins 12 Union Street). Concern regarding stormwater overflow impacts from the property on 12 Union Street

particularly from the tennis court. The hydraulic engineers proposal does not identify effective re-direction for surface and subsoil water away from 12 Union Street;

Comment: A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring that an application be made to connect the stormwater system to the Council stormwater pipeline. An additional condition is included in the recommendation requiring that all stormwater shall be directed to the Council stormwater pipeline. Concern regarding the proposed removal of trees; Comment: Council’s Landscape Designer has reviewed the proposed development and has found the proposed tree removal to be reasonable and is requiring via condition that additional replacement plantings (capable of achieving 8m minimum) be incorporated into the landscape design. The owners of 12 Union Street have raised concern with loss of visual and acoustic

privacy to their indoor and outdoor living spaces addition to that which would be expected with a development that complied with Council’s controls;

Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to visual privacy impacts on properties in Union Street. 12 Union Street is well separated from the proposed new dwelling resulting in reasonable visual privacy impacts on this property. Concern regarding additional traffic in New Lane; The owners of 12 Union Street have requested that traffic mirrors be installed; Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development including the issue of additional traffic in New Lane and has raised no objection to additional vehicles using this lane.


Page 73

The owners of 31 Prince Albert Street have raised concern regarding visual privacy impacts given the increase in height of the tennis court and have asked what is the mature height of the pencil pines proposed between the tennis court and New Lane?

Comment: The applicant has now deleted the works that were proposed to the tennis court, the existing tennis court is proposed to be retained. The plantings proposed on the western side of the tennis court have also been deleted. Concern regarding traffic impacts during construction in terms of both congestion and

access being blocked to other properties; Construction access should be from Ruby Street, not New Lane; Comment: A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring the approval by Council’s Traffic Committee of a Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This plan will detail appropriate traffic measures to be followed for the construction of this development. Damage to New Lane and private property should be repaired by the owners of 28

Ruby Street; Comment: A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring a dilapidation report for all structures adjoining New Lane. No tree exists at the rear of 10 Union Street as depicted on the plans; The Statement of Environmental Effects does not fully address the impact of the

development; The Statement of Heritage Impact has not been prepared by a heritage architect Comment: These neighbour concerns have been noted and taken into consideration as part of this assessment. The proposal will impact on the landscape setting of the dwellings in Union Street with

the height of the development unable to be screened from these properties; The proposal alters the existing dominance of landscape over buildings; The proposal does not achieve the landscape area objectives; and Given the size of the site a variation to the landscape area standard is unreasonable; Comment: Refer to section 5.2.5 of this report for discussion in relation to the proposed landscaping. Concern regarding non-compliance with the height and floorspace ratio provisions of

Council. Comment: Refer to section 5.2.1 and 5.2.5 of this report for discussion in relation to the proposed height and floorspace ratio. The northern elevation is unclear in relation to the actual ground line; Comment: The plans provide detail in relation to the finished ground levels at the boundary and the survey plan provides detail of existing levels along the northern boundary. The proposed retaining walls are problematic; Comment: Retaining walls are a common element in development on steep sites and provided they are constructed correctly are unlikely to be problematic.


Page 74

The proposal does not comply with the height and floorspace ratio controls and objectives and the non-compliance will impact on adjoining properties amenity;

Comment: Refer to section 5.2.1 and 5.2.5 of this report for discussion in relation to the height and floorspace ratio of the development. Amended plans were notified between 2 March 2010 and 17 March 2010. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant policies. This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the streetscape of Ruby Street and the rear lane and adjoining properties and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd. The owners are Mrs K L and Mr D M Adamo. The estimated value of works is $4,280,000.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height, Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height, Clause 13(3) Maximum Two Storeys and Clause 14(2) Floorspace Ratio of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

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

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

development and the design response.

B. That Development Application No. 8.2009.357.1 be approved subject to the following conditions:


Page 75

APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



101 Issue E Roof / Site Plan

February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

102 Issue E Basement February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

103 Issue E Lower Ground Floor Plan


104 Issue E Ground Floor Plan


105 Issue E First Floor Plan February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

106 Issue E Entry Level Plan


107 Issue E Elevation North


108 Issue E Elevation West February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

109 Issue E Elevation East February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

110 Issue E Elevation South


111 Issue E Section A.A February 2010 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

112 Issue D Section B.B October 2009 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd

113 Issue A Front Fence Detailed Elevation


Survey Plan 13 May 2008 Montek Property Surveyors

Landscape Plan October 2009 Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd




November 2009 Ooi Personal Planning Services Pty Ltd

BASIX Certificate 27 October 2009 Applicant

Waste Management Plan 15 November 2009

Susan Rothwell Architects Pty Ltd


Page 76


Prepared by

Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation

27 October 2009 Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd

Arborist Appraisal 29 October 2009 Naturally Trees Arboricultural Consulting









Screen Planting to Verandah

3. The planter box on the northern side of the verandah at first floor level shall include plants selected to achieve a minimum height of 1.6 metres above finished floor level. Details of the plant species selected shall accompany the Construction Certificate application.

Landscape Plan

4. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the Landscape Plan shall be amended to be consistent with the architectural plans.

5. To ensure the preservation of the landscape character of the area, the landscape plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application shall incorporate an additional 3 trees, capable of achieving 8m minimum height and located within the subject site in a location that will not impact on views for surrounding properties. Refer to Appendix C of Council’s Residential Development Control Plan for appropriate tree species


Page 77

Geotechnical Endorsement

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

7. As the site contains a cliff or is located in an area susceptible to landslip, a Landslide Risk Management Assessment (LRM) in terms of the Australian Geomechanics Society Guidelines published in 2000 and 2007 is required.




9. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 4 Union Street, 6 Union Street, 8 Union Street, 10 Union Street, 12 Union Street, 26 Ruby Street and all structures adjoining New Lane which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



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

Retaining Walls

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


Page 78

Drainage

13. To ensure drainage connection/s are properly completed, the applicant shall complete an Application to Connect to Council’s Stormwater Pipelines or Gully Pits and or a Road Opening Permit” and pay the applicable fees prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Both forms are available from Council.

14. All stormwater shall be directed to the Council stormwater pipeline.

Rainwater Re-use System/On-site Detention

15. Having regard to hard surface areas proposed, the capacity of the stormwater system and the need to retard the flow of stormwater in peak flow periods, an on-site detention system shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application and certified as complying with Council’s policy for Stormwater Management in Mosman by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. Where located below a driveway or built structure, the engineer is to certify that the on-site detention system has been designed to withstand all loads likely to be imposed on it.

Alternatively the applicant has the option to utilise rainwater re-use tanks in lieu of or in conjunction with on-site detention tanks. Rainwater re-use tanks can be used to offset the volume requirements of the on-site detention tanks in accordance with Council’s policy for Stormwater Management in Mosman. The offset ratio for OSD to rainwater tanks is: 1 cubic meter of OSD is equivalent to 3 cubic meters of rainwater storage. It should be noted that these tanks are to be at a minimum connected to the toilet and washing machine to achieve this offset.

Sydney Water





Driveway



Page 79




Long Service Levy


Security Deposit


Construction Traffic Management Plan 22. To minimise disruption to and ensure reasonable safety for surrounding public and

private property during site works, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and adopted by Council's Traffic Committee. The plan is to address matters raised in Council's Guide for Construction Traffic Management Plans which is available in Appendix 4 of Council's "Transport Development Control Plan”.

Notes: (a) Council's Traffic Committee meets once every two months. To avoiding

delays in the commencement of works early lodgement is recommended; (b) An application fee of $500 per site for Construction Traffic Management

Plans applies. When assessment is required within 7 days, the required fee is $1,500 per site; and

(c) Fees will be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index and the actual amount to be paid will be determined at the date of payment. You may contact Council on 9978 4111 prior to payment to confirm current figures.



To enable Council to determine whether a contribution is payable and if so what amount, a 'Cost Summary Report' form must be completed if the value of work is less than $1,200,000.00 or a 'Detailed Cost Report' form completed by a member of the Australian Institute of Quantified Surveyors if the value of work is $1,200,000.00 or


Page 80

greater. Copies of these forms are attached to this consent and can also be obtained from the 'Policies and Forms' section of Council's website at www.mosman.nsw.gov.au.















Home Building Act


(a) in the case of work to be done by the holder of a contractor licence under that Act: (i) the name and licence number of the contractor; and



Page 81

(ii) the name of the insurer by whom the work is insured under Part 6 of that Act,
















27. To limit the potential for damage to the trees to be retained, tree protection measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of site works in accordance with the recommendations/s in the arborist report prepared by Naturally Trees Arboricultural Consulting dated 29 October 2009.


28. Temporary sedimentation and erosion controls shall be constructed prior to commencement of any site works in order to prevent the discharge of sediment from the site. The controls shall be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation’s "Managing


Page 82

Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction Manual Volume 1, 4th Edition March 2004”. [Note: this document is now available from the Department of Planning]









Demolition


Asbestos Material

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

Construction Traffic Management Plan 34. All works and traffic movements must be carried out in accordance with the approved

Construction Traffic Management Plan. A copy of the Plan must be kept on site at all times and made available to the PCA or Council officers on request.





Page 83






Site Work Hours









39. All excavations and backfilling shall be limited to that required in accordance with the approved plans only and must be executed safely and if necessary properly guarded in accordance with appropriate professional standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. At least 7 days before excavating, give notice of an intention to excavate to the adjoining owner and furnish particulars to the owner of the proposed work.




Page 84

Dust Control


Council Property



Rainwater Re-Use System

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

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

46. To ensure stormwater and drainage objectives continue to be achieved and to promote awareness of the rainwater re-use system, a plaque measuring no less than 400mm by 200mm shall be permanently attached and prominently displayed within the immediate vicinity of the rainwater tank advising occupiers of the existence of the rainwater tank and that the device is not to be altered without prior approval from Mosman Council.

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

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

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


Page 85

Utility Services

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

Driveway

51. The redundant driveway shall be reinstated with kerb, footpath and suitably landscaped. Materials must be in accordance with Mosman Council’s “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters”.

52. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the New Lane frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.




54. To minimise disturbance to the trees to be retained, for the duration of site works the tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report prepared by Naturally Trees Arboricultural Consulting dated 29 October 2009 are to be maintained in good order.

Tree Preservation






Page 86

BASIX Certificate

57. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated October 27, 2009.

Siting, Height and View Loss



Swimming Pools & Outdoor Spas

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

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

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

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

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

Tennis Courts

64. To ensure a satisfactory visual impact, the new section of tennis court fencing shall have a maximum height of 3.6 metres above court level and shall be constructed in black elements with black plastic coated mesh.

Toilet Facilities





Page 87




Approved Plans






certificate being issued in relation to the building, and after the construction of the swimming pool is completed and the barrier (if one

is required under the Swimming Pools Act 1992) has been erected and before the pool is filled with water

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







http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1992%20AND%20no%3D49&nohits=y�


Page 88





BASIX Certificate




On-Site Detention/Rainwater Re-use System

71. So as Council has accurate records of the stormwater system to aid with catchment management functions, work-as-executed details of the on-site detention system or rainwater re-use tanks prepared by a Civil Engineer with membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field, demonstrating that the required storage and discharge volumes have been constructed in accordance with the design requirements and Council’s policy for Stormwater Management in Mosman are to be provided to Council. The details must show the invert levels of the on-site detention system or rainwater re-use tanks as well as the pipe sizes and grades. Any variations to approved plans must be shown in red and supported by calculations.

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


The terms of the positive covenant shall read:

(i) In this Positive Covenant “detention system or rainwater re-use system” shall mean the detention system or rainwater re-use system approved by Mosman Council pursuant to Development Consent No. 8.2009.357.1 or any modification thereof approved by Mosman Council in writing.



Page 89

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

(iii) The Registered Proprietors shall not remove the detention system/rainwater re-use system without the prior consent of Mosman Council.

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

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


73. For safety reasons, a resuscitation chart and warning sign containing information as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008 must be erected within the pool enclosure and shall be maintained in a clearly legible condition.

Consolidation

74. All allotments involved in this proposal must be consolidated into one allotment prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION








Page 90

DURING OCCUPATION

The following conditions must be satisfied during occupation or use of the development Acoustic 77. To ensure reasonable acoustic amenity for surrounding properties is maintained, the

level of noise emanating from the premises (LA10 measured for at least 15 minutes) shall not exceed the background level (LA90) by more than 5dB(A) when measured at all property boundaries in the absence of that noise source. This condition does not apply to noise generated during demolition and construction activities.

ADVICE / NOTES



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








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

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


Page 91

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

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

(x) Following the issue of the Occupation Certificate an inspection fee of $140.00 (per inspection) is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028 in order to release the footpath security deposit.




Page 92

EP/60 36 Moruben Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.359.1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and erection of a new dwelling, double garage and elevated lap pool




LOCALITY MAP

11

3

B

C

4

DP 379766

DP

101

135

DP 104044

DP 112050

DP 115749

DP 789174

DP 901227

DP 959983

DP 553207

173

171

1

A

12

DP 921131

SP 30614

DP

850

341

SP 37083

DP 916998

BC

1B

CSP

18

21

A1

B1

X Y

DP 1055658

1

11

A

DP 723469

DP

347

728

DP

229

664

DP

305

387

DP

317

571

DP 341868

DP 396756

1 C1

12

DP 105280

DP

333

462

SP 1809

SP 3305

SP 252

C

SP 61959

SP 75171

2

6

SP

689

7

SP

106

SP

746

34

SP 2334

SP 38035

SP 2175

SP 4796

SP 11335

SP 22757

SP 61476

A

19

1717

A17

B17C

28B

13

15A

15A15

1311

15

57

911

12

719

2224

36

3335

3739

3840

42

30

2123

2527

- 2

9

2628

32A

41

3028A43

46

3046A

44

1A 9 ST

AN

LEY

LN

AV

E

ST

RD

MO

RU

BE

NPU

NC

H


Page 93

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and erection of a new dwelling, double garage and elevated lap pool. The proposal complies with the minimum lot size and maximum building height standards. The proposal does not comply with the maximum wall height, maximum number of storeys and the maximum floorspace ratio standards. The proposal also does not comply with the minimum landscaped area requirement. The proposal received six (6) objections in response to notification, primarily in relation to view loss. To assist in the assessment pertaining to view loss the applicant erected height profiles. The assessment finds the impact on views to be reasonable. This is discussed in the view assessment within Section 5.3.1 of this report. The recommendation includes conditions to limit excavation of the site and ensure privacy to neighbouring dwellings. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is assessed as having a reasonable impact on neighbour amenity.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the eastern side of Moruben Road, between Punch Street and Awaba Street. The site is rectangular in shape with frontages of 12.8m to Moruben Road and Stanley Avenue. The site falls 10.6m to the east at an average gradient of 18% it being noted that the site falls steeply from the street boundary. The site presently contains a single storey detached dwelling with a double garage at the Moruben Road frontage. The area below this garage contains a self contained studio. Surrounding development consists predominately of detached residential dwellings of varying heights on the eastern side of Moruben Road and multiple dwellings of varying heights on the western side of Moruben Road. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes* Wetlands No

*On Moruben Road. No impact. 2.0 BACKGROUND There is no background development history of particular relevance to this application.


Page 94

Amended Plans and Information On 18 January 2010 Council requested that the applicant erect height profiles to ascertain the proposals impact on water views. On 2 March 2010 Council requested amended plans and information. The requested information is surmised below: Reduction in the primary living level (mid level) of the dwelling and a related reduction in

overall height. The intent of this request was to reduce privacy impacts from the swimming pool area to the rear without adversely affecting the intended internal configuration.

Request to generally maintain natural ground levels adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries.

Request to delete the unnecessary excavation to the west of the internal stairs at the

lower level. Request to reduce the overall scale of the garage. Revised front fence design. Request to replace the proposed White Magnolia within the sites Moruben Road frontage

with a larger native species as an adequate replacement to the removal of the existing Jacaranda tree.

The response was received on 26 March 2010. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Demolition of the existing dwelling and double garage. The existing studio beneath the

garage is proposed to remain; Construction of a new two (2) part three (3) storey dwelling comprising the following; Lower Ground Floor Level

- Four (4) bedrooms with built in robes; - Rumpus room; - Bathroom; - Internal Stairs; - Unexcavated sub floor area for air conditioning plant area.

Ground Floor level

- Large open plan living area, dining area and kitchen; - Laundry; - Family room; - Bathroom; - New rear deck and adjacent elevated swimming pool; and - Entry foyer and internal stairs.


Page 95

First Floor Level

- Master bedroom with walk in robe, ensuite and rear deck; - Study; and - Rear balcony.

New double garage to the street and associated lift to the primary level of the site. New front fence. Changes to landscaping including the following;

- Tree removal; - Courtyard area adjacent to the lower level bedrooms; - Revised pedestrian entry stairs - Decking and boardwalk from the lift to the entry foyer for disabled access; and - Changes to levels to create level areas within the front and rear yard.

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 2(a1)



Wall Height 7.2m 7.49m (+ 4%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys (+ 50%) No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area 386.7m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5 : 1 0.522: 1 (+ 4.4%) No (SEPP 1)

Landscaped Area 358.2m2 326.5m2 No


Page 96


Setbacks

Lower Ground floor – north

Lower Ground Floor – south

Ground floor – north

Ground floor – south

First floor – north

First floor – south

Swimming Pool – north

Swimming Pool – south

0.9m – 1.5m

0.9m – 1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m – 3m

1.5m – 3m

2m

2m

1.5m – 5.1m

1.5m

1.5m – 5.55m

1.05m – 1.5m

1.5m

1.05m – 1.5m

2.1m

2.7m

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial

Partial

Partial

Yes

Yes


800 No

Parking

Garage Width

Minimum Car Space Dimensions

Vehicular Cross Over

On merit

5.12m

5.5m x 2.8m

3m

2 spaces

6.3m

6.35m x 3m (each)

5.1m

Yes

No

Yes

No

Fencing Height 1.2m 1.8m No



Satisfactory Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 41%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height Clause 13(3) Maximum Number of Storeys Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height The proposal has a maximum wall height of 7.49m which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 0.29m or 4%. Clause 13(3) Maximum Number of Storeys The proposal has a maximum number of three (3) storeys which exceeds the development standard of two (2) storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by one (1) storey or 50%.


Page 97

The objectives for height standards in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives:

(a) to protect public and private views, and

The proposal does significantly affect public views it being noted that the existing fence and garage impinge on potential public view corridors.

The proposals impact on private views is assessed in Section 5.3.1 of this report.

(b) to minimise the visual impact of buildings when viewed from the harbour and surrounding foreshores, and

The new dwelling will not be overly visible from the harbour.


buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form, and

The dwelling is compatible in terms of building and wall of height with neighbouring dwellings. The main ridge for the pitched roof at 32a Moruben Road is at RL 82.19 and the roof height of 38 Moruben Road is at RL 80.45. The proposed ridge height of RL 80.9 provides for an acceptable transition in height for dwellings on this portion of Moruben Road.

The low pitched roof over the master bedroom level is an appropriate design response in a locality which includes a varied roofscape.


existing residential areas. The height of the dwelling is compatible with neighbouring dwellings it being noted

that the dwelling is of lesser height than the 8.5m building height standard. The lower ground floor is partly below natural ground level and the overall height

complies with the height standard. The non compliance with regard to wall height is due to the slope of the land and is

acceptable. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal does not unreasonably impact on the streetscape or neighbour amenity.

Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio Standard The proposal has a gross floor area of 386.7m2 and a floorspace ratio of 0.522:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.5:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 16.15m2 or 4.4%. The objectives for the maximum floorspace ratio standard are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives:

(a) to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality, and

The dwelling in itself is not incompatible with housing characteristics of the locality in

terms of gross floor area. The gross floor area calculations include the existing studio beneath the garage. But for the inclusion of this area the proposed dwelling would comply with Councils floorspace ratio standard.


Page 98

The locality includes examples of larger buildings including the parapet style design of 38 Moruben Road and the expansive multiple dwellings on the western side of Moruben Road.

(b) to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purpose of landscaping and containing urban runoff, and

The lower level attempts to follow the natural topography of the site by stepping down

with the slope, it being noted that every room at the lower level steps down the site. Natural ground levels are slightly raised within the front and rear yard, however this is

not incompatible with neighbouring dwellings.

(c) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development.

The proposed floorspace ratio does not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbour amenity, it being noted that the dwelling is comparable in size within the locality, provides for appropriate setbacks and complies with Councils solar access requirements.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to each of the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standard and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standards is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.


Page 99


State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The works are defined as ‘demolition’ and "dwelling house" and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at Clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Subdivision The new dwelling and associated lot size comply with the minimum lot size development standard, it being noted that the existing lot size is not proposed to change. Height The proposal complies with the building height standard. The applicant has sought to vary the maximum wall height and maximum number of storeys development standards and has provided the following justification: The form of the building provides a ‘fit’ between the height profiles of 32a and 38

Moruben Road. The wall height non compliance relates to the slope of the land. The dwelling provides increased side setbacks, by comparison to the existing dwelling. The three storey section is partly excavated and there is minimal visibility of this part of

the building. The proposal does not result in unreasonable overshadowing or overlooking. The SEPP 1 objections have been assessed in section 5.2.1 of this report. Floorspace Ratio The applicant has sought to vary the maximum floorspace ratio development standard and has provided the following justification: Without the existing floorspace under the garage, the new house is less than the

maximum floor limit in MLEP 1998. The L shape plan modulates the building down the hill. The proposal will not result in an undue loss of privacy or sunlight. There is a minimal view impacts.

The SEPP 1 objection has been assessed in section 5.2.1 of this report.


Page 100

Landscaped Area The proposal is deficient with regard to the minimum landscaped area requirement. This deficiency is relatively minor (in comparison to site area) representing 31.7m2. This deficiency is assessed as reasonable for the following reasons: The site maintains a general dominance of landscape over buildings; The proposed vegetation including replacement trees are satisfactory; The minor increase in levels at the front and rear yard are minor. There is useable and adequate ground level open space for recreation, landscaping and

containment of urban runoff. The proposal also involves tree removal. Several objections have been received in relation the removal of the existing Jacaranda within the frontage. The removal of the tree is necessary to provide for the revised pedestrian entrance. Councils Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposal and has not raised objection subject to recommended conditions. Refer to comments from Councils Landscape Architect in Section 6.0 of this report. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed development will not be readily visible from either the waterway or foreshore, as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and the vegetation and development that exists between the site and the waterway. Excavation The proposed dwelling involves excavations of approximately 1.5m in depth to accommodate the lower ground floor level. Excavations are also proposed in relation to landscaping, footings associated with the revised pedestrian entry stair and the board walk. The originally submitted scheme contained a substantial excavated area to the west of the lower ground floor internal stair and bathroom. This excavation was deemed to be unnecessary and inconsistent with Council guidelines. Amended plans were submitted which document this area as retaining existing natural ground levels. It is recommended that this area be confirmed to remain at natural ground level by way of condition. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The site is located opposite 17 Stanley Street, which is a heritage item of local significance as stated within Schedule 2 of MLEP 1998. The proposed works will not materially impact on the heritage character of 17 Stanley Street and is acceptable on heritage grounds. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009.


Page 101

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as ‘demolition’ and are ancillary to the use of the site as a dwelling house. The works would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The new dwelling has been assessed as reasonable with regard to bulk and scale and the setbacks of the dwelling are consistent with the prevailing development pattern. The front setback of the property from Moruben Road, primarily relates to the ground floor level and the first floor level (master bedroom). This front setback is located closer to the street than the adjoining properties to the north and south. This setback is assessed as reasonable in that it does not cause unreasonable impacts with regard to visual bulk, privacy or overshadowing. The topography of the site which falls steeply away from the street is such that the new front setback will not have a significant impact on the streetscape. The lower ground floor and the northern setback of the ground floor complies with the minimum side setback guidelines. The ground floor setback to the southern boundary and the first floor setback partly comply with the minimum setback guidelines. The proposed site setbacks are reasonable in that they do not result in unreasonable view loss, privacy or overshadowing impacts. In addition the dwelling increases side setbacks with regard to the existing dwelling. Views Properties on the western side of Moruben Road benefit from eastern panoramic views to Middle Harbour, Balmoral and through the Heads. Some properties also benefit from land water interface views of Manly and Rocky Point. The applicant erected height profiles for inspection to assist Council in understanding view affectation. Concern was raised by several properties within the multiple dwelling within 33 Moruben Road and from 30 Moruben Road. In accordance with MRDCP views from the dining room, living room and outdoor balconies are of primary concern in relation to view loss. The Land and Environment Court Planning Principle (Tenacity) has also been taken into consideration during the assessment process.


Page 102

5/33 Moruben Road, 4/33 Moruben Road, 3/33 Moruben Road and 2/33 Moruben Road. The units at 33 Moruben Road benefit from views to the Heads, Manly, Balmoral, and panoramic easterly water views. Site inspections disclosed that 5/33 and 4/33 Moruben Road also benefit from a partly obscured view to the eastern extent of Rocky Point and the Balmoral Promenade. All units benefits from views from their east facing living area, kitchen and balcony. Views to the Balmoral Promenade and Rocky Point are more prominent from a sitting position due to oblique lines of sight. The extent of impact for all units is qualitatively assessed as minor. The erected height profiles demonstrate that the proposal would result in the loss of the partly obstructed view to the Balmoral promenade, some of Rocky Point and the foreground water view of Hunters Bay from the upper level units. The proposal also involves the loss of foreground water views from lower level units. This view loss is assessed as reasonable for the following reasons: All units will maintain the vast majority of their views with only a relatively minor portion of

foreground water views being lost. The removal of the Jacaranda tree adjacent to the sites frontage may open up some water

views for the lower level residences. The retention of siting views is often unrealistic. The proposal is below the maximum building height standard it being noted that the

transition in height between the 32a, 36 and 38 Moruben Road is acceptable. But for the inclusion of a studio below the garage, the proposal would comply with the

floorspace ratio standard. To require compliance with Councils wall height standard (a 290mm reduction) would have

a negligible difference in view affectation. The massing of the upper level closer to the street reduces impacts on views due to lines of

sight. 30 Moruben Road A site inspection of 30 Moruben Road disclosed that the proposal would result in some loss of district views to Seaforth. This impact is primarily from an outdoor entertaining area. The site inspection also disclosed that the removal of the existing main hipped and pitched roof may open up views for 30 Moruben Road. The construction of the low pitched roof over the ground floor living area is more than 1.5m lower than the existing apex. The proposal is assessed as reasonable with regard to Councils view sharing guidelines and in relation to the relevant planning principle. Streetscape and Building Design Moruben Road and Stanley Avenue include a varied dwelling mix from a range of architectural periods. The proposed contemporary dwelling in this context is acceptable. The topography of the locality is such that the dwelling is not highly visible from either Moruben Road or Stanley Avenue. In addition the proposed garage structure and trees a maturity will partly screen the dwelling. The proposed built form associated with the garage and fence will not adversely impact on the streetscape. Moruben Road includes numerous examples of large garages.


Page 103

The 1.8m front fence is not incongruous within this portion of Moruben Road, it being noted that there a many examples in the street. Moruben Road has a high traffic volume and the topography of sites is such that some form of fencing is required to maintain privacy to private open space. The front fence with its open middle portion is also set back slightly from the street allowing for a small planter bed in front of it. The proposed fencing represents a better design outcome to many fences within this portion of Moruben Road and is reasonable. Car Parking and Access The proposal involves the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new double garage with an associated vehicular cross over. In addition a passenger lift is proposed. The amount of car spaces is acceptable and the scale of the garage is consistent with the prevailing development pattern, which includes numerous examples of large parking structures. The proposed crossover, whilst remaining non compliant with Council's 3m width guideline, replaces the existing crossover of similar width and is acceptable. Council's Manager Assets and Services has reviewed the proposed crossover and has raised no objection, subject to recommended conditions. Privacy The proposed changes to levels within the front and rear yard are compatible with neighbouring dwellings. The proposed openings on the lower ground floor and first floor level will not give rise to unreasonable overlooking due to line of sight, neighbouring windows and level differences. The southern elevation of the proposed dwelling includes limited openings and the southern façade of 38 Moruben Road also includes limited openings. Due to the above the location of windows for the subject site will not give rise to unreasonable overlooking impacts to 32a and 38 Moruben Road. Potential overlooking from the first floor balcony is assessed as reasonable in that the balcony is located in excess of 11m from neighbouring open space and decking. In addition mutual overlooking of yards and decking between neighbouring properties on this section of Moruben is common due to both the topography and general orientation of views. The proposed balcony is located off a bedroom and is unlikely to be a highly utilised area. An area of concern in the original application was the privacy impacts from the proposed swimming pool and associated decking, which is located off the primary living level. These concerns related to the level of the pool and decking area in comparison to 32a and 38 Moruben Street. Currently 32a, 36 and 38 Moruben Road include ground floor levels which are at similar levels. The originally proposed new dwelling raised the primary living area (this level included the swimming pool and rear deck) by 1.4m above the existing floor level. The downward overlooking impacts from the swimming pool and rear deck were assessed as unreasonable. In response to Council's concerns the applicant submitted a revised scheme which reduced the height of the primary living area by 100mm. In addition the swimming pool and rear deck were redesigned to step down. The revised deck was amended to be 420mm lower than originally proposed and the swimming pool was amended to be 600mm lower. This revised arrangement provides for an acceptable transition in level difference between the adjacent properties with regard to the aforementioned aspects of the proposal.


Page 104

The revised levels, as nominated on the plans, are included by condition in the consent. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is reasonable with regard to Section 5.6 of MRDCP. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing Due to lot orientation the proposal results in additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property to the south at 32a Moruben Road. MRDCP requires that dwellings should be sited and designed to maximise sunlight to north facing windows of living areas and principle areas of open space. North facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings should not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application illustrate the impact of overshadowing from the existing and proposed development at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm on 21 June. The northern elevation of 32a Moruben Road does not include north facing windows to primary living areas. The primary living areas are located at the rear of the dwelling and are orientated to the east. The movement of shadows throughout the day also ensures that the front and rear yards receive the minimum 2 hours solar access requirement. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 indicates that the provision of the BASIX Certificate overrides the DCP that would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to achieve the fulfilment of the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management Council’s Manager of Assets and Services has reviewed the proposed development and has advised that the development is acceptable subject to recommended conditions. Site Management and Excavation Matters relating to the proposed excavation have been addressed in the Section relating to MLEP 1998. Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP.



Page 105

Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. Swimming Pools The proposal includes an elevated swimming pool adjacent to the mid level living areas at the rear of the dwelling. In accordance with Council guidelines elevated pools are expressly discouraged. Council in correspondence with the applicant requested that this pool be reduced in height to ensure an appropriate relationship with regard to the living areas and terraces of adjacent properties. The intent of the requested design change was to protect privacy to neighbouring dwellings. The amended design has reduced the top of pool level by 600mm. The reduced pool level satisfies the concerns by Council staff in relation to privacy impacts from the swimming pool. Whilst the pool remains elevated above ground, it complies with Council's side setback guidelines and no objections in relation to its siting have been received. Subject to conditions the proposal is reasonable with regard to the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 7.4 of MRDCP. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (MTDCP) The proposal provides for two (2) car spaces ensuring compliance with MTDCP. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Architect raised no objection subject to conditions and made the following comments:

One Jacaranda is proposed for removal. It is approved subject to a native replacement tree capable of reaching 8 -10m minimum being located into the landscape plan.

The amended scheme includes a replacement Iron Bark tree which is capable of reaching 8m in height at maturity. This tree is assessed as satisfying the above comments from Councils Landscape Architect. Council’s Manager Assets and Services raised no objection subject to conditions.


Page 106

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 2 December 2009 and 17 December 2009. Six (6) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 5/33 Moruben Road (x3); 4/33 Moruben Road (x2). 3/33 Moruben Road; 2/33 Moruben Road; 30 Moruben Road; and 32a Moruben Road. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: 5/33 Moruben Road If a new dwelling is erected the new building should not exceed the height of the

previous dwelling; Comment: The existing dwelling on site is one (1) storey in height. It would be unreasonable to restrict the height of the dwelling to no more than existing if Council standards allow for higher development. The objectives of Clause 13(1) Height limit in residential zones are not met; Comment: The assessment pertaining to the objectives contained within Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998 is provided in Section 5.2.1 of this report. The view loss is not minimal and has an impact on the total view, including loss of

view to the Balmoral promenade; Comment: The assessment pertaining to view loss is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of this report. The removal of the Jacaranda tree will allow for a view to the new roof rather than the

existing vegetated outlook; Comment: It is acknowledged that the removal of the Jacaranda tree would reduce vegetated outlook. The replacement tree however (Red Iron Bark) is assessed as adequate. Notwithstanding the above the existing Jacaranda in part screens a water view corridor that exists between 32a Moruben Road and 36 Moruben Road. In this regard views may be increased within this area in the time the replacement Iron Bark grows to maturity. 3/33 Moruben Road The proposal would result in view loss. When the building next door at 38 Moruben

Road was approved it was designed with a flat roof as not to impact the on the views; Comment: The assessment pertaining to view loss is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of this report. Request to retain the Jacaranda tree; Comment: Please refer to previous comments.


Page 107

2/33 Moruben Road The proposed wall height restricts water views for the lower level units of 33 Moruben

Road; Comment: The assessment pertaining to view loss is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of this report. The wall height adds to visual bulk. Comparing the wall height to neighbouring

dwellings is not sufficient in that this methodology could result in ‘height creep’; Comment: The proposed wall height represents a departure of 0.29m and is the result of the slope of the land. Wall height compliance would not in this case make a difference with regard to visual bulk as viewed from 2/33 Moruben Road which is located in excess of 50m away from the offending area of non compliance. Request to retain Jacaranda tree; Comment: Please refer to previous comments. 30 Moruben Road Impact on outlook and views; Comment: The assessment pertaining to view loss is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of this report. 32a Moruben Road Support for location of proposed swimming pool; Comment: The location of the swimming pool has been assessed as reasonable, subject to recommended conditions. Objection to the requested amendment by Council of the proposed front fence design; Comment: The revised front fence has been assessed as reasonable. The front fence will not open up a view corridor to 32a Moruben Road. 4/33 Moruben Road Request to retain Jacaranda tree; Comment: Please refer to previous comments. View to the harbour would be reduced if the roof is allowed to go higher than 38

Moruben Road. The unit blocks of 33 Moruben Road have one of the best views of Middle Harbour and the heads;

Comment: It is agreed that 33 Moruben Road enjoys expansive views. The assessment pertaining to view loss is addressed in Section 5.3.1 of this report. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant planning guidelines and policies and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.


Page 108

9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Kate Brown. The owners are Kate and Paul Brown. The estimated value of works is $1,786,000.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to the maximum wall height, maximum number of storeys and maximum floorspace ratio limit within Clauses 13(2), 13(3) and 14(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the

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

neighbour amenity; and (d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the






Survey

Job Reference 5817

18 April 2008 True North Surveys

A00_A – Revision A,

A02 – Revision I,

A03 – Revision K,

A05 – Revision E,

A06 – Revision E,

A12 – Revision C,

DA08 – Revision A,

23 March 2010 Prue Murdoch Architect


Page 109


A01 – Revision G,

A07 – Revision D, and

A08 – Revision J.

A04 – Revision G. 9 February 2010 Prue Murdoch Architect

A09,

A10,

A11, and

DA07.

13 November 2009

Prue Murdoch Architect

D01, and

D02.

October 2009 Northern Beaches Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd




19 November 2009

Prue Murdoch Architect

Arborist Appraisal 13 November 2009

Naturally Trees Arboricultural Consulting

BASIX Certificate 17 November 2009

Applicant

Waste Management Plan 9 November 2009 Prue Murdoch Architect

Amended Schedule of Finishes

Not dated Prue Murdoch Architect

Survey Report 21 April 2006 Usher & Company Pty Limited

Letter from Mr. Greg and Mrs. Josephine Beirne

13 November 2009

Mr. Greg and Mrs Josephine Beirne.





Excavation 2. To minimise unnecessary excavation of the site, the area to the west of the lower

ground floor internal stairs and bathroom is to maintain the existing natural ground levels. This area where air condition plant equipment is proposed to be located (as


Page 110

nominated on the plans) shall not be excavated. No concrete slab in this location is approved. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate Application.

Levels and Privacy 3. To maintain privacy to neighbouring properties the ground floor level (as nominated

on the plans) shall be no higher than RL74.05. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

4. To maintain privacy to neighbouring properties the ground floor level, rear east deck (as nominated on the plans) shall be no higher than RL73.68. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

5. To maintain privacy to neighbouring properties the pool deck (as nominated on the plans) shall be no higher than RL73.5. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

6. To maintain privacy to neighbouring properties the top of the swimming pool stone (as nominated on DA plan A06 Issue E) shall be no higher than RL72.9. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.








9. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 32a Moruben Road and 38 Moruben Road which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.


Page 111




Retaining Walls



13. Having regard to hard surface areas proposed, the capacity of the stormwater system and the need to retard the flow of stormwater in peak flow periods, an on-site detention system shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application and certified as complying with Council’s policy for Stormwater Management in Mosman by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. Where located below a driveway or built structure, the engineer is to certify that the on-site detention system has been designed to withstand all loads likely to be imposed on it.


Sydney Water





Page 112


Driveway





Canopy Tree

18. To ensure the preservation of the landscape character of the area, the landscape plan submitted with the Construction Certificate application shall incorporate one tree, to achieve a minimum 8m – 10m height and be located near to the position of Tree 2. Refer to Appendix C of Council’s Residential Development Control Plan for appropriate tree species.

BASIX Certificate


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit



Page 113







23. To minimise disruption to and ensure reasonable safety for surrounding public and private property during site works, a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and adopted by Council's Traffic Committee. The plan is to address matters raised in Council's Guide for Construction Traffic Management Plans which is available in Appendix 4 of Council's "Transport Development Control Plan".

Notes:

(a) Council's Traffic Committee meets once every two months. To avoid delays in the commencement of works early lodgement is recommended;

(b) An application fee of $500 per site for Construction Traffic Management Plans applies. When assessment is required within 7 days, the required fee is $1,500 per site; and


Structural Certification

24. Certification shall be provided from a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field that the studio beneath the garage that is shown to be retained on the approved plans, can be retained, and that these components will withstand the proposed additional loads.



Page 114













Home Building Act



that Act,


If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in progress so that the information notified above becomes out of date, further work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority for the development


Page 115

to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the updated information.














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




30. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation,


Page 116

demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.





Demolition


Partial Demolition

33. All demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 2601 – 2001: The Demolition of Structures. Demolition is not to exceed that approved under this consent and as shown on approved plans. If for structural or other reasons additional demolition and then rebuilding works are found to be necessary, consent for such works is to be obtained from Council.

Asbestos Material











Page 117

Site Work Hours













Dust Control


Landfill

43. Any fill material imported to the site shall consist of virgin excavated natural material as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or be covered


Page 118

by a Resource Recovery Exemption from the Department of Environment and Climate Change.

Council Property





Drainage

47. Stormwater shall be directed to the street gutter. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Stormwater Management in Mosman”.







http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/file_download/142/POLICYStormwaterManagement.pdf�


Page 119


Utility Services


Driveway

55. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the Moruben Road frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.



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




Tree Preservation






Page 120

BASIX Certificate

61. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated November 17, 2009.








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



Air Conditioning Units

69. To control noise impacts for adjoining properties, no external air conditioning unit shall be installed without prior consent. Applicants may have regard to Council’s complying development controls for air conditioning units under the Mosman Exempt and Complying Development DCP or State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

Lighting



Page 121

Toilet Facilities


Waste Management







Approved Plans






certificate being issued in relation to the building. after the construction of the swimming pool is completed and the barrier (if one






Page 122










BASIX Certificate








Page 123











PRIOR TO OCCUPATION





Page 124




DURING OCCUPATION


Landscape Maintenance

83. Landscaping provided shall be maintained for the life of the development. Where vegetation approved as part of this consent dies, it must be replaced with new landscaping that achieves a similar height and form to that approved under the landscape plan forming part of this consent.

ADVICE / NOTES












Page 125




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

(x) Occupants of all new dwellings approved since 1998 are not eligible to participate in Council’s residential parking scheme. If a parking scheme exists in front of the property, occupants must either rely on off street parking or abide by signed parking restrictions.

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

(xii) Following the issue of the Occupation Certificate an inspection fee of $140.00 (per inspection) is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028 in order to release the footpath security deposit.




Page 126

EP/61 1 and 1A Arbutus Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.394.1

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a dwelling house with basement parking, swimming pool, fencing and landscaping




LOCALITY MAP

SP

307

84DP 1133904

SP 74452

? DP 917468

DP

A

1

1

3

DD

SP 51977

DP 455983

DP

1

1

SP 8486

C

61

12

39

1

4041

4243

4445

48

2

46

100101

1

2

SP 81358

35P

T30

3132

3334

361

2 1DP 1039282

28

2625

1

SP 54731

1 DP 455981

21 DP 3953

23

37

38

DP 3953DP 960486

DP 8400

DP

3953

DP 416892

DP

128

51

DP 326667

DP 3780

DP 3953

DP

706

851

DP 927060

SP

868

5

DP

313930

DP

395

3

DP

3953

DP

3953

DP 963781

SP 77545

DP 1000230

DP 3953

DP

DP

1061271

DP

3953DP 3953

DP

3953

DP 707977

SP 31917

DP 450008

DP

934

504

B

113

101

64

A

5655

154

B

5051

65

63

49 6766

57

1

2

B

58

29A4

24

38

36

2

31

4

1A

12

10

5

1

6

8

14

9

7

3

1

31

46

4

1

33

16

331

A1

35

A

4

11

27A

27

45

42

40

1

2125

18

20

18

16

8

35

21

41

21

06

4

5048

46

5252

17

18

9

7A

7

91

81

886

85

93

8987

83

19

R

LN PD

E

SUP

ERBA

ST

LN

ALM

OR

A

SU

PE

RB

A

EVANSS

T

N

RD

LN

MANDO

LONGARBUTUS

LIT

TLEMANDOLON

ALMORA STREET


Page 127

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for demolition of existing structures and construction of a dwelling house with basement parking, swimming pool, fencing and landscaping. The site comprises four (4) allotments, consolidation of these lots will be required. The proposed development complies with the building height and wall height development standards and minimum setbacks to side boundaries. The proposed development does not comply with the number of storeys or floorspace ratio development standards. This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the eastern side of Arbutus Street, between Little Street and Almora Street. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 52.62 metres to Arbutus Street and 54.03 metres to the rear lane. The site has a maximum fall of 9.5 metres to the east. The site comprises four (4) allotments Lot 44 DP 3953, Lot 44 DP3953, Lot 42 DP 3953 and Lot 41 DP 3953 and is know as 1 and 1A Arbutus Street. The site has a combined area of 2569.1 square metres. Three of the allotments are currently vacant. A detached dwelling house, swimming pool and garage exist on 1A Arbutus Street. The surrounding development consists of predominantly single dwelling houses with some examples of older multiple dwelling developments. Vehicular access is currently gained from both Arbutus Street and the rear lane. The site is located within the Balmoral Townscape as defined in the Residential Development Control Plan. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The development history of the site has been researched. On 9 December 2003 development consent 8.2003.331.1 was granted for demolition of a dwelling house, outbuildings, tennis court and swimming pool. This application related to Lots 42, 43 and 44 which was then known as the Kookaburra Estate. The works approved as part of this application have been undertaken.


Page 128

In 2004 development consent was granted as part of three separated development applications for the erection of a new dwelling house, garage, pool and outbuilding on each of the three vacant allotments. These development consents have now lapsed. Development application 8.2009.217.1 for excavation and erection of a three (3) storey dwelling house with basement carparking, swimming pool, associated site and landscaping works at 1 Arbutus Street was withdrawn on 22 September 2009 following issues with the documentation lodged with the application. There is no further background information of particular relevance to this application. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Demolition of the existing dwelling and other structures at 1A Arbutus Street; Site works; Construction of a new dwelling which is proposed to contain the following:

Basement Level (RL 52.274) basement carparking for an unknown number of

vehicles accessed from Superba Lane, 2 x plant/storeroom, pantry and lift.

Living Level (RL 55.103) kitchen, family dining room, breakfast room, service

kitchen, pantry, 2 alcoves, gallery, 2 sitting rooms, formal dining room, sitting room, office sitting room, powder room, stair and lift.

Mezzanine Level (RL58.77) 2 bedrooms, guest room, guest lounge, sitting room,

library/office, office, book breakfast, 4 bathrooms, stair, lift and 4 terraces

Bedroom Level (RL62.20) 7 bedrooms, 7 bathrooms, gallery, lift, stair and 2

terraces. A swimming pool is proposed to the east of the dwelling house; Geothermal heating is proposed for the new dwelling; Undergrounding of powerlines for Arbutus Street and the rear lane; Site landscaping; and Fencing to Arbutus Street and the rear lane. Consolidation of the four allotments will be required. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007


Page 129

State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning: 2(a1) Residential




Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys (+50%) No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area 1097m2 1465m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.427 : 1 0.57 : 1 (+33.5%) No (SEPP 1)

Landscaped Area 4666m2 1236.8m2 No



Setbacks

Basement Level - north

- south

2.0m

2.0m

10.0m

7.528m

Yes

Yes

Living Level - north

- south

1.5m

1.5m

10.0m

7.539m

Yes

Yes

Mezzanine Level - north

- south

1.5m

1.5m

10.0m

7.539m

Yes

Yes

Bedroom Level - north

- south

1.5m

1.5m

10.0m

7.539m

Yes

Yes

Swimming Pool – north

– south

– east

2.0m

2.0m

2.0m

12.2m

8.41m

5.8m

Yes

Yes

Yes


44 0 Yes

Parking On merit Unknown Yes

Fencing Height

Arbutus Street

Superba Lane

1.2m

1.2m

2.02m

1.89m – 2.35m

No

No


Page 130




Greater than 2 hours Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 46%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 43%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(3) Maximum Storeys Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio Clause13(3) Maximum of Two Storeys The proposal has up to three (3) storeys which exceeds the development standard of two (2) storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by one storey or 50%. The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views,

This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on public and private views. The new dwelling has been designed having regard to the views of properties on the high side of Arbutus Street as it is excavated into the site and low set to the street. Views will be retained over and above the proposed new dwelling.


surrounding foreshores, The proposed development will have a minimal visual impact when viewed from

the harbour and surrounding foreshores by virtue of the distance of the site from the harbour and the other dwellings and landscaping that exist between the site and the Harbour.


buildings in terms of height and pitched roof form;

The streetscape appearance of the development is reasonable when considered in the context of surrounding development, particularly the more contemporary designs that exist in the vicinity of the site. The roof is proposed to be finished in slate and incorporates roof planters which help to soften the appearance of the development when viewed from above;


Page 131

The height of the development when viewed from Arbutus Street will be substantially lower than the dwelling to the north of the site at 3 Arbutus Street; and

The roof form will have a reasonable fit within the streetscape and is sufficiently modulated to reduce its visual bulk.


existing residential areas. The bulk and scale of the proposed built form will have a reasonable impact in

terms of streetscape appearance, view sharing, overshadowing and visual privacy.

Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a floorspace ratio of 0.57 : 1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.427 : 1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 368 square metres or 33.5%. The objectives for the maximum floorspace ratio standard are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives: (a) to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics

of the locality:

The scale of the proposal is reasonable when considered in the context of surrounding development with the development being excavated into the site and low set to the street;

The proposal presents as less than one storey in height to Arbutus Street; The design of the proposal will sit well within the streetscape and will not appear

visually dominant or excessive in height when compared with other development within the street;

The scale of the development will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties as it is provided with substantial setbacks to the side boundaries and the rear lane and the landscaping proposed to surround the development will soften the appearance of the development when viewed from adjoining properties;

The non-compliance is created by the large basement level. This level of the dwelling is proposed to be excavated into the site and will not be visible when the development is completed and will not contribute to the scale of the development.

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

landscaping and containing urban run-off:

The new dwelling is in part excavated into the site which has the benefit of the development being low-set to the street so that views are retained over and above the property;

The proposed excavation is not excessive and will not affect the ability to landscape the site; and

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended conditions of consent to control stormwater overflow from the site.


Page 132

(c) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development:

The bulk and scale of the proposed built form will have a reasonable impact in terms of streetscape appearance, view sharing, overshadowing and visual privacy.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to each of the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standards and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standards is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Clause 45 of the SEPP is applicable as the applicant is proposing to underground power lines. As required by the SEPP the development application was referred to Energy Australia for comment. Energy Australia made the following response in reply:

“New connections to the electricity network in the area surrounding the proposed development are currently constrained due to high network loads. The applicants at 1 & 1A Arbutus St should make an application for their electricity connection as soon as possible so that supply arrangements can be determined”.

No conditions of consent were recommended by Energy Australia. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.


Page 133


State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.6 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential. The works are defined as a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Minimum Lot Size The site complies with the minimum lot size requirement for the erection of a dwelling house in the residential 2(a1) zone. Height The proposed development complies with the maximum building height and wall height development standards. The applicant has sought to vary the maximum number of storeys development standard at Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 and has provided the following justification: The dwelling is consistent with the underlying purpose of the control for the maximum

number of storeys as it will not impact upon public or private views; When viewed from Arbutus Street, the dwelling will have the appearance of a single

storey dwelling and only a small part of the roof will be visible; The proposed dwelling is consistent with the existing and surrounding built form, which is

predominately 2-3 storey structures; The dwelling is further setback from the Arbutus Street frontage than the surrounding

properties, which reduces the appearance of the height of the building; It is unlikely to have a visual impact when viewed from the Harbour; and It does not cause adverse impacts upon adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing

or view loss. Floorspace Ratio The applicant has sought to vary the floorspace ratio development standard at Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 and has provided the following justification: The dwelling is consistent with the existing and surrounding built form in the locality; The appearance of bulk and scale is minimised through a design that responds to the

natural slope of the site; In accordance with the gross floor area provision within the Draft LEP, the proposed

dwelling complies with the control; and The dwelling does not cause adverse impacts upon adjoining properties.


Page 134

Landscaped Area The proposed development does not comply with the landscaped area requirement of MLEP 1998. The formulation of the landscaped area calculation under Clause 15 of MLEP 1998 is unhelpful in establishing a reasonable yield of landscaped area for large allotments. In this regard the formula requires 4666 square metres of landscaped area to be provided on the site, which is greater than the area of the site. Substantial landscaping is proposed to surround the dwelling house and will cover approximately 48% of the site (not including roof planters). No significant trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application. The proposed development satisfactorily meets the objectives relating to landscaped area outlined at Clause 15(1) of MLEP 1998. Council’s Landscape Designer has reviewed the proposed development and has recommended approval subject to conditions. The landscaping proposed as part of this application is reasonable. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 indicates that Council must not consent to the erection of a building on land in the foreshore scenic protection area unless an assessment has been made having regard to the objectives of the Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed development will not be visually dominant when viewed from the waterway as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and the development and vegetation that exists between the site and the waterway. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural water course. Excavation MLEP 1998 indicates that the consent of Council is required where a development has the effect of materially altering the shape or natural form of the land and as part of a development, control should be made of soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with landform modification. Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that effective measures are used to minimise soil erosion and sedimentation loss resulting from the proposed development.


Page 135

Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection Map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.7 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The siting and scale of the proposed development is assessed as reasonable. The new dwelling is provided with setbacks in excess of the minimum requirement to the side boundaries. The new dwelling is provided with substantial setbacks to the front and rear boundaries consistent with established setbacks. As discussed, the new dwelling is in part excavated into the site which has the benefit of the development being low set to the street so that views are retained over and above the property. Views The proposed development has been designed having regard for views from nearby properties and the public domain as the new dwelling is low set to Arbutus Street which results in views being obtained over the property. The proposed development complies with the MRDCP requirement in relation to views. The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on public and private views. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring that no plant or equipment be placed on the roof other than as shown on the approved plans.


Page 136

Landscaping Refer to MLEP 1998 landscaped area assessment. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed development will have a reasonable streetscape appearance when viewed from Arbutus Street with the new dwelling being low-set to the level of the street. The external finishes of the new dwelling are proposed to include limestone walls and a slate roof. Large sections of roof are proposed to be covered in rooftop planting. The proposed materials are sympathetic to neighbourhood character. The proposal incorporates fencing to both Arbutus Street and the rear lane. MRDCP requires that front fences should be no more than 1.2 metres above footpath level however the DCP does allow for fences up to 1.8 metres in height provided the scale or heritage value of the property are appropriate for a higher fence and if that part of the fence above 1.2 metres in height is open in style. The fence fronting Arbutus Street is proposed to be constructed of sandstone posts with metal infills and have a maximum RL of 66.25 or a height of approximately 2.15 metres above the level of the road reserve directly in front of the property (no footpath exists). Given the cross fall of the road reserve, the fence will have a height of approximately 500mm above the crown of the road. The part of the fence over 1.2 metres in height is proposed to be open in style. It is recommended that this fence will not appear visually dominant when viewed from the street given the minimal bulk of the fence and its relationship to the level of the crown of the road. The fence fronting Superba Lane is proposed to be constructed of sandstone posts with metal infills and have a maximum RL of 56.65 or a height of 1.89 – 2.35 metres above the level of the lane. The fence is proposed to be set back from the boundary and a dwarf wall 850mm high is proposed near to the boundary. The landscape plan identifies that an avenue of Crepe Myrtle trees under planted with Star Jasmine are proposed between dwarf wall and the fence. A 2.0 metre high hedge (Bush Cherry) is also proposed on the western side of the fence. Whilst the height of the fencing to Superba Lane does not comply with the height requirement, it is recommended that the proposal will have a reasonable impact on the streetscape of the lane with substantially more soft landscaping proposed than provided by existing development in the vicinity of the site with frontage to the lane. Car-parking Access A basement garage is proposed to be integrated into the development accessed from Superba Lane. The plans do not identify the number of vehicles that are proposed to be accommodated in the basement car park. The basement is of sufficient dimension to provide parking for a number of vehicles and manoeuvring space. The proposal incorporates a semi-circular driveway accessed from Arbutus Street. The driveway is reasonable in the streetscape as it is graded to drop below the level of the road and will in part be screened from view by the proposed fencing. A small decomposed granite parking area is proposed within the front building line. This parking area is also below the level of the road and will not have a significant streetscape presence. On street parking within Arbutus Street will not be unreasonably lost as a result of the proposal particularly given the potential alternative of four vehicular crossings to Arbutus Street if each of the four allotments were separately developed.


Page 137

Privacy and Security The proposed development will allow for reasonable visual and acoustic privacy for residents and adjoining properties. The new dwelling is well set back from the side boundaries and has been designed to not unreasonably overlook adjoining properties. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation to control the acoustic output from the swimming pool plant incorporated into the development. Crime Prevention The proposed development complies with the objectives and the relevant planning guidelines of the crime prevention requirement of MRDCP. Sunlight, Daylight and Over-shadowing MRDCP requires that buildings should be sited and designed to maximise sunlight to north facing windows of living areas and principal areas of open space and that north facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space should not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The adjoining property 33 Almora Avenue is located to the south of the site and the proposal will have some impact on this property in terms of solar access. The private open space areas and living room windows of this dwelling are concentrated to the front and rear and will not be substantially affected by the shadow cast by the proposal, especially when having regard for the shadow cast by the existing development at 1A Arbutus Street. The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on solar access to adjoining properties, compliant with the MRDCP requirement. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities are provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation As discussed in this report, a BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application. The BASIX SEPP indicates that this policy overrides any DCP that would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the proposed development including the concept stormwater plan and has advised that the development is acceptable subject to the conditions that have been recommended. Site Management and Excavation A dilapidation report would be required for adjoining dwelling houses/structures. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the relevant requirements of MRDCP site management and excavation are adhered to. Waste Management The applicant has submitted a waste management plan with the development application.


Page 138

The proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the outcomes and planning guidelines relating to waste management. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Balmoral townscape. The proposal is reasonably consistent with the desired future character objectives and will have a reasonable visual impact when viewed from the public domain. The proposed development has been low set to the street and will allow for public and private views to be obtained over the site. Utility Infrastructure Arbutus Street and the rear lane are not identified streets for the undergrounding of power lines. Despite this, the applicant proposes to underground powerlines in Superba Lane and for both sides of Arbutus Street for the width of the site. It is noted that light poles will need to remain or be relocated to the satisfaction of Energy Australia. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring the undergrounding of the power lines as proposed by the applicant. Swimming Pool The dimensions of the swimming pool are identified differently on the landscape and architectural plans. The applicant has advised that the dimensions shown on the site plan are correct, a condition of consent is included in the recommendation to clarify the issue. The swimming pool complies with the requirements that swimming pools be provided with a 2.0 metre landscaped setback to boundaries, be located behind the building line and not be located above ground level. The swimming pool is sufficiently separated from adjoining properties so as to not impact on their amenity. Conditions of consent are also included in the recommendation requiring compliance with the following requirements of MRDCP: (a) that any lighting of the swimming pool be designed so as to avoid glare and light spill

onto adjoining recreation areas, habitable rooms and public spaces; (b) that the swimming pool equipment be located in a sound proof container which is

positioned so that there is no change to the noise level at any point at the boundary with another property including a public place;

(c) that the swimming pool be fenced in accordance with The Swimming Pools Act 1992; and

(d) that drainage and overflow from the swimming pool be directed to the sewer. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) A basement car park is proposed to be incorporated into the development. The plans do not identify the number of vehicles that are proposed to be accommodated. The basement is of sufficient dimension to provide parking for a number of vehicles and manoeuvring space. On site parking for vehicles will also be available on the semi-circular driveway and associated hardstand. Given MTDCP does not specify a minimum or maximum parking provision for dwelling houses, this is not unreasonable. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation.


Page 139

5.3.4 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy A significant Council retaining wall within the road boundaries exists in Arbutus Street for part of the site frontage. The Statement of Environmental Effects identifies that no change is proposed to this wall. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 5 January 2010 and 20 January 2010. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 4 Superba Parade; and 6 Superba Parade. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Concern regarding the proposal for a single dwelling house over four blocks of land at

a time when there is a need to provide additional residences to meet increases in population projected for Sydney;

Comment: The proposed construction of a new dwelling house over four existing allotments does not breach any Council provisions as the controls relate to minimum rather than maximum lot sizes. As there is no breach of a provision the proposal is assessed as reasonable in this regard. Concern regarding any demolition of 33 Almora Street; Comment: The proposal does not involve the demolition of 33 Almora Street. Concern that the proposal is not consistent with the objectives relating to floorspace

ratio in that the development is not consistent with the housing characteristics of the locality, the site is already excavated why is further excavation necessary and the development not being consistent with the subdivision pattern;

Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.6 of this report for discussion in relation to the floorspace ratio and site excavation. Concern regarding non-compliance with the number of storeys development standard

and the resulting impacts and scale of the development;


Page 140

The development will dominate when viewed from certain vantage points including, Cobblers Beach, HMAS Penguin and buildings within the Sydney Harbour National Park and Middle Head.

Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.1, 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the height and visual dominance of the development. Some strategically placed Angophora costata trees would help soften the visual

impact of the building; Comment: Council’s Landscape Designer has reviewed the proposed site landscaping and has found it to be reasonable. Reasonable levels of landscaping are proposed to surround the development that will assist to reduce the visual impact of the development when viewed from adjoining properties and the public domain. The geotechnical report incorrectly states that the property extends from Arbutus

Street to Superba Parade; Comment: This concern has been noted and taken into consideration as part of this assessment. The size of the development warrants additional control so that the construction

method lessens its impact on surrounding properties; Concerns regarding traffic and parking impacts on the rear lane during construction

and suggest that some construction vehicles enter the site via Arbutus Street; A number of properties in the vicinity of the subject site have recently been

redeveloped and this development will add to the ongoing issues with the lane being blocked, workers working beyond the allowable hours and workmen using the lane as a carpark;

The construction traffic management plan shall contain the following requirements: Work Hours to be between 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday and 8 to 1pm

Saturday; No material to be unloaded from the lane; All material to be stored within the site; Construction access off the lane is to be minimised and vehicles are to be

driven into the property and to leave in a forward direction; No cranes to use the lane for access; All concrete pours are to be carried out from Arbutus Street only; and No trade men or employee of the builder to park in the lane at any time.

Comment: Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has been consulted as part of this assessment regarding traffic impacts during construction. The advice provided is that these issues need to be addressed as part of a Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring the approval by Council’s Traffic Committee of a Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This plan will detail appropriate traffic measures to be followed for the construction of this development. One submission in support of the proposal was received from or on behalf of the following property:

10 Arbutus Street; Matters raised within this submission and commentary on those matters is summarised below:


Page 141

The site is a big block of land and the improved public and residential views (compared with the previous residence and the DA approved in 2004) and the increased allowance for landscape gardens would alleviate any concerns that the house is too large;

We see no issue with the SEPP 1 lodged in relation to the number of levels and the floorspace ratio as a large part of the development is underground and affects neither the footprint nor the bulk of the building and the building is set into the slope and is well below the 8.5m height limit;

In addition, the owners of 4 Superba Parade have advised that they welcome the proposed relocation of the light pole and the easing of the angled corner of Superba Lane.

Comment: Matters raised within these public submissions have been noted and taken into consideration as part of this assessment. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant policies. This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is BJP Architects P/L. The owners are Mr S A & Mrs A E Clausen and Clausen Property Pty Ltd. The estimated value of works is $7,535,000.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to the maximum number of storeys and floorspace ratio within Clause 13(2) and 14(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the


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



Page 142





Site Plan BJP/SCA/09/A0 November 2009 BJP Architects

Roof Plan December 2009 BJP Architects

Bedroom Plan December 2009 BJP Architects

Mezzanine Plan December 2009 BJP Architects

Living Plan December 2009 BJP Architects

Basement Plan December 2009 BJP Architects

North Elevation December 2009 BJP Architects

South Elevation December 2009 BJP Architects

East Elevation December 2009 BJP Architects

West Elevation December 2009 BJP Architects

Section AA December 2009 BJP Architects

Section BB December 2009 BJP Architects

Fence Detail A, B , C and D 3 March 2010 BJP Architects

Survey Plan Ref. 3716Adetail Issue 2

23 November 2009

C.M.S Surveyors Pty Limited




Undated Moody and Doyle Pty Ltd

BASIX Certificate 24 March 2010 Applicant

Waste Management Plan 14 December 2009

Applicant

Letter from Jack Hodgson Consultants Pty Limited

10 December 2009

Jack Hodgson Consultants Pty Limited

Letter from Naturally Trees 10 September 2009

Naturally Trees


Page 143









Amended Plans

3. The Construction Certificate plans shall identify:

(a) Fencing to both Arbutus Street and Superba Lane consistent with the Fence Detail A, B , C and D dated 3 March 2010 prepared by BJP Architects;

(b) The dimensions of the swimming pool shall be consistent with Drawing No. Site Plan BJP/SCA/09/A0 dated November 2009 prepared by BJP Architects; and

(c) The parking area accessed from the semi-circular driveway shall be consistent with Drawing No. Site Plan BJP/SCA/09/A0 dated November 2009 prepared by BJP Architects.

Geotechnical Endorsement 4. As the site contains a cliff or is located in an area susceptible to landslip, the

Construction Certificate application plans must be endorsed or countersigned by a qualified practicing Geotechnical Engineer with membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field



Page 144




7. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 33 Almora Avenue and 3 Arbutus Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.




Retaining Walls


Council Property 11. A Works on Council Property Application is to be lodged to Council and approved by

Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. This is to detail all works at the on Council property at the frontage of the property in Arbutus Street and Superba Parade. Councils Asset Inspector should be contacted for a site inspection prior to any plans being lodged to ensure compliance with Council’s Specifications.


12. Having regard to hard surface areas proposed, the capacity of the stormwater system and the need to retard the flow of stormwater in peak flow periods, an on-site detention system shall be provided. Detailed plans shall be submitted with the Construction Certificate application and certified as complying with Council’s policy for Stormwater Management in Mosman by a Civil Engineer with corporate membership of the Institute of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a corporate


Page 145

member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field. Where located below a driveway or built structure, the engineer is to certify that the on-site detention system has been designed to withstand all loads likely to be imposed on it.


Sydney Water 13. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or

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




Landscape Plan

14. Prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate the landscape plan shall be amended to be consistent with the architectural plans or any conditions of consent.

Long Service Levy


Security Deposit


Driveway 17. The northern vehicular access to the property in Arbutus Street appears tight when

considering the turning circles provided by AS 2890.1 -2004. Alterations to widen the turning point at this location may be required to ensure vehicles can enter and access


Page 146

the property. Any changes should be in accordance with the relevant Australian standard and shown on the Construction Certificate Plans.










Notes:

(a) Council's Traffic Committee meets once every two months. To avoid delays in the commencement of works early lodgement is recommended;

(b) An application fee of $500 per site for Construction Traffic Management Plans applies. When assessment is required within 7 days, the required fee is $1,500 per site; and




Page 147













Home Building Act



that Act,




Page 148



















27. Public liability insurance to the value of $5,000,000 must be taken out by the builder or owner to protect any person, firm or company from injury, loss or damage sustained as a consequence of the carrying out of site works, including all excavation,


Page 149

demolition and construction works. A copy of the policy must be provided to Council or the Accredited Certifier.





Works within Property Boundaries 29. All works shall be contained within the property boundaries except as otherwise

required by a condition of consent.

Demolition


Asbestos Material










Site Work Hours

33. In order to maintain the amenity of adjoining properties, audible site works shall be restricted to between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm


Page 150

Saturday. Inaudible site works may also take place between 7.00am and 8.00am on Saturdays. No site works shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.











Dust Control


Council Property


40. Any works carried out to Council owned property or Infrastructure as a result of this consent are to be undertaken in accordance with Council specifications; i.e “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings &


Page 151

Concrete Converters” , “Public Domain Improvement Program”, “Specification For Brick Paving”, “Specification For Stormwater Drainage Construction” or “Specification For Asphalt Pavement Construction”.

Drainage 41. Stormwater shall be directed to the pit in Superba Lane as indicated in the stormwater

plans submitted. All drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Stormwater Management in Mosman”.








Driveway

48. The redundant driveway shall be reinstated with kerb, footpath and suitably landscaped. Materials must be in accordance with Mosman Council’s “Specification For Concrete Kerb & Gutter, Footpaths, Vehicle and Kerb Crossings & Concrete Converters”.

49. The levels at the boundary alignment of the property along the Arbutus St frontage shall be defined by the existing levels.





Page 152

Utility Services

51. To reduce the extent of overhead cabling, cabling for the extent of the frontage shall be located underground to the requirements of Energy Australia. The siting of any replacement poles required by Energy Australia within the immediate vicinity of the site must have regard to scenic views enjoyed from adjoining properties.





Tree Preservation




BASIX Certificate

56. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated March 24, 2010.



No plant or equipment shall be placed on the roof other than as shown on the approved plans.



Page 153








Lighting


Toilet Facilities








Page 154

Approved Plans

















inspection was carried out; and



Page 155

Whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying authority who carried it out.












Page 156

BASIX Certificate






Consolidation

73. All allotments involved in this proposal must be consolidated into one allotment prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION


Firepit

76. To minimise the propensity for air pollution, solid fuel burnt must only comprise dry, well seasoned, hardwood, excepting kindling in which case softwood may be used. Under no circumstances is the burning of chemically treated fuel to take place.



Page 157

ADVICE / NOTES


















Page 158



Page 159

EP/62 572 Military Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2008.323.2

PROPOSAL: Modification of a consent comprising an additional ground floor residential unit and storage areas.


LODGEMENT DATE: 27 November 2009 (downtime 17 days)


LOCALITY MAP

D P440712

D P527019

12B

A

D P203007

DP 2959 D P517727

2A

1

440829

D P555171 SP 2

SP 37113

SP

301

66

SP

437

99SP 81795

2

DP

410

058

1

1

SP

677

30

142 1

D

P79

3829

DP

132

2 B1

D

P11

536

DP

392

540

DP 307999

SP 56055

345

DP 845743

1718

DP 961545

962002

DP 1343

2

11

BA

1

AB

2

D P105934

DP 330810D P436785

SP 80255

2

SP

526

24

BAC

D

P37

8840

DP

443

478

SP 3693

SP 21582

DP 867458

2

1B2

1062

04

D

P55

5727

343

121

13

DP 1130557

DP 934SP 47167

588

491 - 505

1 -

35

7

600

911

485A485

5

46

3 1A 1

24

6

11

11A

97

3

8

18

18-2

0

560

2016

12

566

568

570 572 576

17 15 13

1513

171

8

562

10

27 -

29

576

1A

8

49 -

53

475

18-2

018

-20

18-2

0

RD

BURROGY LN

ST

ST

RO

SE

BO

ND

RL

RD

AR

DIN

AL

ST

ELL

MILITARY ROAD


Page 160

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal involves a modification of consent comprising an additional ground floor unit within a previously approved void and balcony area and the conversion of office space into residential storage. The additional unit is satisfactory with regard to Councils multiple dwelling guidelines and consistent with the design principles and guidelines within SEPP 65 – Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal does not significantly add to visual bulk and does not alter the approved car parking arrangements. Amended and additional conditions of consent are included within the recommendation in relation to disabled access, common residential storage areas and additional Section 94 contributions. Subject to these conditions, the proposed modification is assessed as reasonable.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the northern side of Military Road, between Cardinal and Bond Streets. The site is a parallelogram in shape with a frontage of 12.765m to Spit Road. The site also has a rear frontage of 12.765m to Burrogy Lane. The site presently contains a construction site in accordance with Consent No 8.2008.323.1. The previous two storey retail and commercial building has been demolished and the site is substantially excavated for the proposed basement car parking. Surrounding development consists of a variety of multiple dwelling developments and other retail/commercial premises. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND Development Application 8.2008.323.1 was approved by Council on 21 April 2009. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The modification application comprises: Conversion of part of the commercial office space to the rear of Retail Shop 2 into

residential storage; and


Page 161

New one (1) bedroom unit with study and balcony in the previously approved area comprising ground floor rear balcony and void.

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design of Residential Flat Development Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Business Centre Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 2(e) Residential

Site Area 700m2 389m2 (no change) N/A*

Gross Floor Area

Approved 978m2 N/A*

Proposed 76.25m2 N/A*

Total 1054.25m2 N/A*

Floorspace Ratio 1 : 1 2.71 : 1 N/A*

Landscaped Area 156m2 0m2 N/A*

*The proposal benefits from existing use rights. Pursuant to Section 108(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act care must be taken to ensure that there is not a de facto application of standards in environmental planning instruments.


Setbacks

Basement

South (street)

North (lane)

East

West

2m

Established pattern

Established pattern

3m

3m

Nil (no change)

Nil (no change)

Nil (no change)

Nil (no change)

Nil (no change)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A



Satisfactory Yes


Page 162



Thermal – Pass

Energy – 30%

Water – 42%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 30%

Yes

MTDCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Parking – approved

20.2 spaces 14 spaces No

Parking – proposed 20.6 spaces 14 spaces No

5.2 EXISTING USE RIGHTS Existing use rights for the site were established under DA 8.2008.323.1. 5.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP& A Act, 1979) In accordance with Section 106 of the EP&A Act, 1979 the previous commercial premises as defined in MLEP 1998 benefit from existing use rights in that consent was granted prior to the adoption of the current instrument. In accordance with Section 107(1) of the EP&A Act nothing in this Act or an environmental planning instrument prevents the continuance of an existing use. Section 108(1) includes the incorporated provisions:

Clause 108 (1) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to existing use and, in

particular, for or with respect to: (a) the carrying out of alterations or extensions to or the rebuilding of a building or

work being used for an existing use, and (b) the change of an existing use to another use, and (c) the enlargement or expansion or intensification of an existing use, and (d) in the case of an existing use for the purpose of a place of public

entertainment, the conditions to which such a use is to be subject. Section 108(3) of the Act makes clear that the provisions of any otherwise applicable environmental planning instrument may not derogate or have the effect of derogating from the incorporated provisions while they remain in force. 5.2.2 Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EPA 2000) In accordance with Clause 44 of EPA 2000 an existing use may be rebuilt. The rebuilding must be for the existing use of the building works and for no other use, and must me carried out only on the land on which the building was erected before the adoption of MLEP 1998. Pursuant to Clause 45 of EPA 2000 development consent is required for any change of an existing use to another use and in the case of a building that is used for different existing uses, for any change in the proportions in which the various parts of the building, work or land are used for those purposes. Pursuant to Clause 46 of EPA 2000 nothing in Part 5 prevents the granting of a development consent referred to in Clause 44 at the same time as the granting of a development consent referred to in Clause 45.


Page 163

5.2.3 Planning Principles adopted by the Land and Environment Court for Existing Use Rights

The principles to be considered when undertaking a merits assessment of a proposed development of a site with existing use rights were dealt with by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 71. In Stromness Pty Ltd v Woollahra Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 587 the planning principles in Fodor were considered and confirmed by Justice Pain at pars 83-89. The principles as detailed in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC 71 is as follows: Principle No. 1: How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites? The existing bulk and scale of the approved building is not significantly altered. The additional floor area is located within the building footprint and is within a void and semi-enclosed rear balcony at the ground floor. The northern external wall for the proposed unit will not create unreasonable additional bulk. Planning Principle No. 2: What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use takes place? The proposal involves a reduction in commercial office space. The existing non permissible use (commercial premises) is reduced in area due to the proposed new unit and residential storage in its place. The proposal moves toward more utilisation of the site for a permissible use (multiple dwellings). Planning Principle No. 3: What are the impacts on adjoining land? Physical impacts are discussed in the assessment pertaining to MLEP 1998 and MRDCP contained in section 5.3.5 and 5.4.1 of this report. The assessment has found that subject to recommended conditions, the works will have a reasonable impact upon adjoining land. Planning Principle No 4: What is the internal amenity? The assessment has found that internal amenity is reasonable. 5.2.4 Other Matters The proposed development will continue to benefit from existing use rights in that commercial premises are prohibited in the 2(e) Residential Zone. In this context Condition 24 of the consent may be deleted. 5.3 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS As the site benefits from existing use rights the assessment of the relevant planning instruments is used as a guide only. 5.3.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area;


Page 164

(b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.3.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.3.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 - Design of Residential Flat

Development SEPP 65 applies to the proposal. This Policy aims to improve the design quality of residential flat building in New South Wales. Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 requires that an application that relates to a residential flat building be accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from a qualified designer. The Design Verification Statement submitted with the application states that the residential development was designed by Robert Ferguson Architects, a registered architect, and that it was designed in accordance with the Design Quality Principles of SEPP 65. In accordance with Part 2 of SEPP 65 the design quality principles provide a guide to achieving good design and the means of evaluating the merit of proposed solutions. These design quality principles contained in SEPP 65 are assessed at Annexure A. Additionally, there are a number of guidelines and rules of thumb contained in the Residential Flat Design Code which accompanies SEPP 65 that are applicable to the proposed development. The relevant points are addressed at Annexure B. The assessment has found that the modification application satisfies the requirements and guidelines within SEPP 65. 5.3.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(e) Residential. The proposed multiple dwelling component of the development is permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The commercial component is prohibited in the 2(e) zone. The site benefits from existing use rights. The works are permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that:


Page 165

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

(b) there were no previous approval bodies or concurrence authorities; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) the two (2) submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report. Height The modifications involve no change to the approved heights. Floorspace Ratio The modifications involve an additional 76.25m2 of gross floor area. The additional floor area is assessed as reasonable as it is located within an undercroft and void area beneath the first floor level, hence the modification does not result in additional bulk with adverse amenity impacts. Landscaped Area The subject site notionally would require 156m² of landscaping under Clause 15 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. The site pre development did not include any landscaped area and the proposal does not provide any. The absence of landscaping is satisfactory in the context of the site enjoying existing use rights and with regard to the previous lack of landscaping on the site. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The modifications will not be visible from either the waterway or foreshore. Excavation The modifications do not involve excavation. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. The site is within immediate proximity of a heritage item, being the Sacred Heart Church site at 485 Military Road. The works the subject of the modification application would not have an adverse impact on the significance of the item. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.3.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned B6 Enterprise Corridor under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are ancillary to the use of the site as a ‘residential flat building’ and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008 (it being noted that ‘residential flat buildings’ in the B6 zone are only permissible as a part of mixed use development).


Page 166

The retail component of the development is classified as ‘retail premises’ within Draft MLEP 2008 which are prohibited in the B6 zone. As discussed, the site benefits from existing use rights and this benefit is maintained under Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.4 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.4.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Subdivision The applicant has requested that condition 75 of the consent be amended to refer to Strata Subdivision. Section 109C of the Act, does not differentiate between types of subdivision. Condition 75 is not required to be changed and is recommended to remain in its current form. To ensure that the proposed residential storage space on the ground floor is used for the nominated purpose, conditions are included within the recommendation requiring this area to be designated as common area for the residential component of the development. Siting and Scale The existing siting and scale of the building is not altered as a result of the proposed modification. Views The modification application will not give rise to adverse impacts upon views to, from or across the site. Streetscape and Building Design The modification application will not alter the approved streetscape presentation of the building as seen from Military Road. The visual bulk of the building as viewed from Burrogy Lane does not significantly change. Car Parking and Access The assessment pertaining to car parking and access is addressed in Section 5.4.2 of this report. Multiple Dwellings: Design The assessment with regard to the design of the additional dwelling is contained with the relevant SEPP 65 Assessment contained with Section 5.2.3 and Annexure A and B. The proposed additional unit is assessed as reasonable with regard to Section 5.5 of MRDCP and SEPP 65. Privacy Objections due to the proximity of the ground floor dwelling to units at 8 Earl Street have been received. These objections relate to acoustic and overlooking impacts.


Page 167

In accordance with Planning Guideline P1 contained in Section 5.6 of MRDCP habitable rooms which are 9m away from (with a direct sightline) habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings must include some form of privacy treatment. The subject dwelling is approximately 11m away from neighbouring habitable windows at 8 Earl Street, this separation is assessed as adequate in accordance with MRDCP. Crime Prevention The modifications satisfy the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal will not give rise to adverse impacts upon solar access to adjoining properties. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 indicates that the provision of the BASIX Certificate overrides the DCP that would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to achieve the fulfilment of the BASIX requirements. Accessibility and Adaptable Housing The modification provides for a ground floor unit within the mixed use/multiple dwelling building. In accordance with Planning Guideline P1 contained with Section 5.11 of MRDCP, multiple dwellings must have an accessible continuous path of travel from the street frontage and public spaces to all ground floor dwellings. The proposed ground floor unit contains a split level (1 step) to maintain clearance for the vehicular access ramp to the basement car parking. Accordingly the proposal is inconsistent with the aforementioned guideline. The applicant has requested that condition 21 of the consent be amended. This condition relates to ground floor units being designed as adaptable dwellings. The amendment seeks to still maintain the provision for an adaptable unit but at a different level of the building. This amendment is assessed as reasonable in that a continuous path of travel from Military Road to the units above ground level is possible by using the proposed lift. Waste Management The proposal does not materially alter the approved waste management facilities and measures to be taken during construction. It is noted that the commercial component of the proposal has been reduced. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Spit/ Military Road townscape. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape.



Page 168

5.4.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) Section 2 of the TDCP requires that parking facilities should be provided in accordance with the rates and requirements specified in table 2. The minimum car parking requirement for the proposed development is outlined in the table below

Use Description No of spaces

Retail 125.76m2 7.86 spaces

Residential 3 x 1 bedroom

6 x 2 bedroom

Visitor

3

7.2

2

Total 20.06 spaces

The modified development maintains the provision of 14 off-street parking spaces, thereby resulting in a shortfall of 6.06 spaces. The modification does not materially alter the previously approved shortfall of 6.2 spaces and is acceptable in this context. The originally proposed commercial space which required approximately 1 car space has been deleted and the propose dwelling requires one car space. In this instance the previously approved quantum of car parking is not altered. 5.4.3 Mosman Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94 plan applies to this proposal. The applicant has paid their contribution as per the original consent. The modification including the additional one bedroom unit requires a further contribution of $9,753.00. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Nil. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 21 January 2010 and 15 February 2010. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 3/8 Earl Street; and 13/8 Earl Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Overdevelopment of the site;


Page 169

Comment: The proposed additional floor area has been assessed as reasonable. Please refer to the assessment pertaining to floorspace ratio within Section 5.3.4 of this report. Extra apartment will overlook apartments at 8 Earl Street. There will be a potential

noise impact; Comment: Please refer to the assessment pertaining to privacy within Section 5.4.1 of this report. The approved plan does not have adequate parking and the extra apartment will

severely exacerbate the situation; Comment: Please refer to Section 5.4.2 of this report. The apartment does not appear to get any sun and ventilation is limited; Comment: The apartment is north facing utilising optimum orientation for sunlight and ventilation. Please refer to Annexure A and B for assessment of the apartments design. How can waste removal and garbage be removed? Comment: The modifications do not change the approved waste storage or removal conditions. Where can delivery vehicles park? Comment: Vehicular deliveries are nominated as parking within the basement level (visitor parking space/loading bay). The modifications do not involve changes to the approved number of car spaces. There does not appear to be wheelchair access; Comment: Wheel chair access is available from Military Road to the retail shops and apartments above the ground floor level. There does not appear to be a fire pump; Comment: Fire safety measures are assessed in the Construction Certificate phase and are required under the Building Code of Australia. This is a matter dealt with by the Certifier. The proposal adds another storey to the block; Comment: No additional storeys are proposed. 8.0 CONCLUSION The modification application has been assessed against the relevant planning guidelines and policies and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Rahme. The owners are D and T Rahme Pty Ltd and Greene Street Pty Ltd. The estimated value of works is $2,500,000.00


Page 170

No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Modification of Consent Application No. 8.2008.323.2 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Deletion of condition No. 24. A2. Amending conditions Nos. 1 and 21 to read as follows:




Survey Plan 1045 8 August 2001 Usher & Company Pty Ltd

Architectural Plan Nos: a1100, a1101, a1102, a1103, a1104, a2001, a2002, a2003, a2004, a2005, a3001, a3002, a3003 and a1105 all issue c

17 December 2008

Robert Ferguson Architects

Drainage/Sediment Control Plans 957 – S1/3, 957 – S2/3 and 957 – S3/3

27 August 2008 John Romanous & Associates

Draft strata plan 08015 3 March 2009 Robert Ferguson Architects


document Prepared/Issued by

SEPP 65 Design Statement 5 September 2008



5 September 2008

Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

Traffic & Parking Assessment Report

5 September 2008

Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd

Acoustic Report 29 August 2008 Acoustic Dynamics

Geotechnical Investigation 2 August 2004 GeoEnviro Consultancy Pty Ltd

BASIX certificate 1 September 2008

Department of Planning

Colours and Finishes Undated Robert Ferguson Architects


Page 171

As amended shown in colour only (8.2008.323.2)


a1102 – Issue G 29 March 2010 Robert Ferguson Architects

a2003 – Issue E, and

a3001 – Issue E.

9 November 2009



document Prepared/Issued by


6 October 2009 Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

SEPP 65 Design Statement 30 October 2009 Robert Ferguson Architects

BASIX Certificate 21 September 2009

Applicant

ABSA – Assessor Certificate

19 September 2009

ABSA

Access, Mobility & Adaptable Housing

21. To provide accommodation suitable for people with disabilities, at least one dwelling within the development must be designed as an adaptable dwelling in accordance with Australian Standard 4299 and the Building Code of Australia.

A3. Addition of the following conditions: Residential Storage Area 2A. To ensure the residential storage area as nominated at the ground floor level is used

for storage by residential unit occupiers only, this area shall be designated as a common area for residential unit occupiers only. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate Application.

75A. To ensure the residential storage area as nominated at the ground floor level is used

for storage by residential unit occupiers only, this area shall be designated as common storage area for residential unit occupiers only. Details are to be included in the Subdivision Certificate Application.

Additional Section S94 Contribution 28A. Pursuant to Section 94 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, an

additional monetary contribution of $9,753.00 towards the acquisition and embellishment of public open space as outlined within Part C of the Mosman Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2006 shall be paid to Council.

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

Note: Contribution rates will be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index and the actual amount to be paid will be determined at the date of payment. You may contact Council on 9978 4111 prior to payment to confirm current figures.


Page 172

ADVICE / NOTES

(xi) Your attention is drawn to Condition 28A and the need for payment of the additional Section 94 contribution arising from the additional one bedroom unit approved under DA 8.2008.323.2.



Page 173

EP/63 96A Bradleys Head Road (Mosman Police Station)

DA NUMBER: 8.2010.64.1

PROPOSAL: Subdivision of an existing lot to create two lots with one containing the Mosman Police Station and the other to be added to Hampshire Park

REPORTING OFFICER: Clive Johnson, Consultant Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 10 March 2010 (Downtime 0 days)


LOCALITY MAP

A

1

1

D

P

22

DP311664

DP 316094

SP 832

2

1

DP 3396

SP 5085

SP 1930

SP 2307

10

32

SP 2120

SP 1407

BC

A

D

DP

438858

SP 1201

SP 2071

1 DP 115729

SP 18487

SP 10794

SP 2380

B

1

DP 397821

SP 10495

SP 501

SP 14310

SP 152

SP 10796

13

91

112

1D

P 512103

SP 32902

20

DP

781262

1514

SP 1664

C

DP 120705

DP 64812

DP 71643

DP 943069

DP

976

424

12D

P 5

5227

4

DP 72026

1

11

241 DP 79251

DP 79470

DP

919

654

DP 976424

078

SP

221

34

DP

104

185

1719

20

DP 203119

D P208888

DP 534644

DP 81981

SP 2544

1

DP

917

918

DP

607

8028

SP 15286

183

11

28

10

DP 1571

3 27

2

2

1

3

1

DP

157

1

2

P 901581

SP 53264SP 50618

SP 53673SP 57434

SP 61182

SP 55560

12

SP 45722

11

DP 455964

SP 18881

SP 13028

DP

907

691

29

12

DP 976424

SP 31135

DP 105567714

DP 1099893

15

75

73

71

52A

52

62

66

6058

5654

135

2

74

92A

94

96A

9290

8874

70-72

812

104

2119

14

139-153

93810

610

6B10

811

0

4-93610

4

155-159

161

76

9810

010

2

186

139

184A

141

143

182

184

137 42

180

86

116

143A

139A

98

61

8688

92A

9294

63

9696

57

82

B

84

5986 4

2

84 - 86

37

51

17

18

53

1416

1210

ST

MU

ST

ON

BR

AD

LEY

S

HEAD

MIDDLE

LN

ST

ST

RD

WA

NT

HE

AD

ST

PR

INC

E A

LBE

RT


Page 174

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development application submitted by Terry Carroll of UGL Services on behalf of the Land and Property Management Authority is to subdivide the Mosman Police Station site into two Torrens Title allotments generally separating the land used as a park from that occupied by the Police Station. There is no construction work proposed and the purpose of this application is to change the legal entity of the land titles only. The northern lot (Lot 1) is to be declared Crown Land and added to the Hampshire Park site that was previously dedicated for Public Recreation. The southern lot (Lot 2) will be the site of the existing Mosman Police Station. The application was notified between 22 March and 8 April 2010. No submissions were received. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site was inspected on 6/4/2010. The site is bound by Bradleys Head Road to the east, Prince Albert Street to the west, adjoins Hampshire Park to the north and is occupied by the Mosman Police Station at the southern end of the site. The Police Station is fenced. Between the northern fence of the Police Station and Hampshire Park is a portion of the site that is currently being used as open space. Surrounding development consists of single and multi storey dwellings. Opposite, on Bradleys Head Road is the Buena Vista Hotel. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 46.49m to Bradleys Head Road, 67.275m to Prince Albert Street, 53.635m to 94 Bradleys Head Road and 14.21m to Hampshire Park. The site has a total site area of 1718.8 sqm. The site falls from Bradleys Head Road down to Prince Albert Street. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulphate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No


Page 175

2.0 BACKGROUND NSW Police erected a Police station on the site in the early 1900's. The building has been identified by NSW Police as being unsuitable to support a modern Police operation and they plan to relocate operations from the site to a more modern and efficient building. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: No change to the existing buildings and grounds is proposed. The proposal is to subdivide the existing allotment (Lot 1 in DP 781262) to create two

Torrens Title allotments. There is no physical work proposed and the purpose of this application is to change the

legal entity of the land titles only. Lot 1 is proposed at the northern end of the site and would have a frontage of 15.35m to

Bradleys Head Road, a frontage of 24.125m to Prince Albert Street and a boundary of 14.21m where the lot adjoins Hampshire Park. The proposed site area of Lot 1 is 456.3 sqm. Lot 1 is to be declared Crown land and added to the adjoining Hampshire Park land which was Dedicated for Public Recreation on 28th July 1900 and placed under Council's control by Gazette of 25th August 1900.

Lot 2 is proposed at the southern end of the site containing the existing Police station. It would have a frontage of 31.14m to Bradleys Head Road and a frontage of 43.15m to Prince Albert Street. The proposed site area of Lot 2 is 1262.5 sqm.

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Notifications Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 5(a)

Site Area No minimum or maximum lot size

456.3m2 Lot 1

1262.5m2 Lot 2

N/A

Gross Floor Area

Existing Nil No change N/A

Proposed Nil Nil N/A


Page 176


Floorspace Ratio Nil No change N/A

Landscaped Area

Existing Nil No change N/A

Proposed Nil No change N/A

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for the Police purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 5(a) Police. The works are defined as subdivision and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 21 for Community Uses. The development satisfies zone objectives. Heritage The site is in the Bradleys Head Conservation Area and contains the Mosman Police Station which is a heritage item with Local Significance. The proposal will have negligible impact on the heritage item as the subdivision follows the existing fence line between the Police Station grounds and the Park, and no works are proposed. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places.


Page 177

5.2.4 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. Subdivision is permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is heritage item No. 51 and is within the Bradleys Head Conservation Area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account and dealt with by conditions of consent. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Manager Assets and Services raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 22 March 2010 and 8 April 2010. No submissions were received. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposal to subdivide the Mosman Police Station site into two allotments with the northern lot (Lot 1) to be declared Crown Land and added to the Hampshire Park site that was dedicated for Public Recreation, is satisfactory and recommended for approval subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Terry Carroll c/- UGL Services. The owner is the Land and Property Management Authority. The estimated value of works is $ Nil. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected.


Page 178

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2010.64.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



Ref: 1600 Undated Geoffrey Swalwell, Registered Surveyor

Document title Date of document Prepared by


Undated No author

Statement of Heritage Impact Undated No author


2. In accordance with Section 95(2) of the Act, this consent shall lapse unless an application for a Subdivision Certificate is lodged with Council within 2 years from the date of the consent.



Subdivision

3. A Subdivision Certificate under Section 109C 1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be obtained prior to the registration of plans under the Conveyancing Act 1919. All conditions of the development consent must be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Sydney Water




Page 179

The Section 73 compliance certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate, whichever may occur first.

ADVICE / NOTES


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


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

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











Page 180

EP/64 24 Fairfax Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.355.1

PROPOSAL: New gazebo and elevated deck with landscaping at the rear of an existing dwelling




LOCALITY MAP

1

DP 15840

DP 36472

331

2

B

A

1

1

DP

256

532

DP 3439

DP 1072

DP

390

148

DP 399583

1

B

A

6SP 18735

DP 11256DP 855088

22

4 1

3

10

19

20

4

SP

483

20

SP 56239

DP

562227

332

B

1

2

B

DP 599418

DP

629

999

41

46

40

16

DP 1081525

2

DP 11256

DP

362371

DP 377957

2

AB

100

DP

114

5303

DP 11256

DP 113

0762

DP

306

347

DP 400376

DP

166

641

1

2

A

23

DP 11256

DP

1111038

DP

343

9

DP 394087

A

1

6

A

B

5

3

D

4412

A

DP

11256P 2068

DP

1006046

SP 34295

B

SP 5051

SP 7597

SP

705

54

96

45

3

3

25

123

1

1

6

4

7

14

810

20

12A

56

27

5452

16

4

7A

26

7B

24

8

75

2220A

11A

17

24

22

1315

20 18 1410

119

1434

16

7

5

3

1

2

1210

13 11

11

8

6

30A30B

4

9

32A 32

15

18

HOPETOUN

FARD

WARRIN

GAH

RD

AV

E

KU

RR

AW

ON

G L

N

RD

WA

KIO

RA

H

FAIRFAX


Page 181

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed development is for a new gazebo and elevated deck with landscaping at the rear of an existing dwelling. The application received two (2) submissions objecting to privacy, view loss, and the visual impact of the elevated deck and gazebo. A site visit has found there to be no view loss from the proposal. The assessment finds the works to be reasonable subject to a reduction in the depth of the suspended deck and the erection of a privacy screen. Subject to the conditions contained in the recommendation the application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site was inspected on 27 January 2010. The site is located on the southern side of Fairfax Road, between Warringah Road and Parriwi Road. The site is trapezoidal in shape with a frontage of 20m to Fairfax Road. The site falls 15m to the north at an average gradient of 45%. The site presently contains a two storey dwelling house. The southern side of the site is dominated by a cliff. Surrounding development consists of two and three storey dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND On 16 March 2001, Council approved Development Application No. 8.2000.362.1 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and erection of a two-storey dwelling house with a double garage and landscaping works. The approved works are now completed. On 12 September 2005 Council approval Development 8.2005.98.1 for construction of a swimming pool and external stair.


Page 182

On 16 October 2009, Council rejected Development Application No. 8.2009.512.1 a new elevated deck and landscaping at the rear of an existing dwelling house. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: New outdoor area comprising of a gazebo and open deck; and Partial demolition, re-construction, and extension of the concrete stair to the rear garden. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. Additional information Amended plans correcting an error with regards to the RL noted for the roof of the gazebo was submitted to Council on 15 March 2010. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning: 2(b)

Site Area N/A 641.1m2 N/A

Existing Gross Floor Area 352.6 m2 311.1m2 N/A

Landscaped Area

Existing 249.3m2 323.3m2 N/A

Proposed 249.3m2 244.65.9m2 No


Page 183


Setbacks

Ground floor - west

0.9 – 1.5m

0.9m – 3.5m

Yes


45 0 Yes



Unchanged Yes


Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was not accompanied by a BASIX certificate due to the works being for a deck and stair, unattached from the house and therefore exempt. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned residential 2(b). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives.


Page 184

Height The proposal is below the maximum overall building height, wall height, and number of storey development standards as stated in Clause 13 of the MLEP. Floorspace Ratio The proposal does not alter the floor space ratio. Landscaped Area The proposed landscaped area has been calculated as 244.65 sqm. It is noted that a majority of the loss of landscaped area is due to the suspended deck, which is over a sandstone cliff, reducing the loss of permeable ground. The condition reducing the depth of the suspended deck will increase the amount of landscaped area available for sustaining plant growth. The proposal aims to increase the accessibility of the rear yard through an upgrade of a currently underutilised space. The remaining landscaped area is satisfactory as it meets the objectives of the landscape controls, as follows: a) to maintain and enhance the landscape and townscape character of Mosman’s

residential areas by requiring landscaping of sites in conjunction with other development, and

Sufficient landscaped area remains such that the development will have a suitable setting to enhance the character of the site.

b) to maintain a general dominance of landscape over buildings, particularly on harbour

foreshores and in the 2(a1) and 2(a2) Residential Zone, and The landscaped area is well located to balance the built form and will maintain the dominance of the landscape setting.

c) to maintain and enhance significant vegetation, especially mature trees, and

There is no loss of any significant vegetation.

d) to maintain natural ground levels especially near boundaries and to limit excavation of

sites, and The proposal involves excavation, however sufficient area remains for landscaping and containment of urban runoff.

e) to ensure there is adequate and useable ground level open space for recreation,

landscaping and containing urban run-off. The proposal does not change the amount of useable ground level open space. There is sufficient permeable space to minimise urban run-off from this site noting the scheme includes a complex system to handle overland flow.

The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory.


Page 185

The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of surrounding development and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the foreshore. The proposal meets the clause objectives. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated. For the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse. Excavation Excavation associated with this proposal is relatively minor, being for the footings and therefore can be addressed by site management conditions of consent. These conditions recommend that site disturbance be kept to a minimum, in order to minimise excavation. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 low density residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998.


Page 186

As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The form, scale and siting of proposal is compatible with the prevailing development pattern and its character. The proposed setback of the gazebo and deck complies with P7 section 4.2 of the MRDCP and does not adversely impact the adjoining sites with regard to privacy loss, overshadowing, or view loss that would otherwise warrant refusal. Views The proposal does not impact on private or public views. A submission was received from the adjoining owner regarding view loss, from a site visit conducted of that property it was determined that there are no water or district views to the east. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed works are within the rear yard of the dwelling and cannot be viewed from the public domain. As a result there is no streetscape impact. Privacy The proposed alterations and additions do not result in undue privacy loss to adjoining properties. A submission was received raising privacy as an issue from the property to the west at 7A Warringah Road and the south east at 1 Warringah Road. Due to the topography and the desire to elevate living areas to maximise the expansive water views, elevated balconies are a common feature. However this terrace is elevated over a previously inaccessible open space. To reduce privacy conflicts with the adjoining property at 1 Warringah Road it is assessed that the depth of the suspended deck be reduced by 1m from the proposed width of 3m to 2m. The proposed deck is located approximately 1m below the adjacent elevated master bedroom level at 7A Warringah Road and is set back between 1m – 3.7m from the boundary. Currently there are a number of Lilly pillys which provide good visual separation between the neighbours. These are to be retained. To avoid relying solely on vegetation noting the boundary fence is low in this area, a privacy screen is recommend on the western side of the suspended deck with a height of 1.8m, for the length of the deck on this side.


Page 187

Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. Due to the orientation of the site and the local topography there is no change to solar access for the adjoining properties. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Stormwater Management Council’s Manager Assets and Services has reviewed the proposed development and has advised that the development is acceptable subject to recommended conditions. Site Management and Excavation Matters relating to the proposed excavation have been addressed in the Section relating to MLEP 1998. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP. Waste Management The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. A condition of consent ensures the construction certificate will be accompanied by a waste management plan. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Rosherville Wy-ar-gine townscape. The proposal cannot be viewed from the public domain and has no material impact on the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions.


Page 188

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 24 November 2009 and 9 December 2009. Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 3/1 Warringah Road; and 7a Warringah Road. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: View Loss from master bedroom of 7a Warringah Road; Comment: A site visit was conducted and there will be no view loss to 7a Warringah Road. The height of the gazebo is incorrect; Comment: Amended plans were submitted correcting this error. The removal of the 5 Lilly pillys along the western boundary will increase the noise

transfer between 24 Fairfax and 7A Warringah ; Comment: The reference to the removal of the Lilly pillys refers to those on the rocky outcrop behind the gazebo in the SW corner not those along the western boundary. As the proposed structure is higher than the surrounds noise transfer will be an issue; Comment: Noise arising from the normal residential use of the proposed area is unlikely to have a sustained detrimental impact. Nonetheless, the recommendation includes a reduction in the width of the deck to limit its capacity for use by a large number of people. Privacy loss due to its users being able to look directly into the privacy open space

pool area to the west; Object to the loss of the Lilly pillys on the western boundary, these provide screening. The section shows that the proposed gazebo will look directly into the master

bedroom of no.7A Warringah Road. Comment: As outlined above three is no loss of the Lilly pillys along the western boundary. However to avoid relying solely on vegetation noting the boundary fence is low in this area, a privacy screen is recommend on the western side of the suspended deck with a height of 1.8m for its entire depth. The proposal overshadows the private pool area of 7A Warringah Road. Comment: As outlined above there is no additional overshadowing to the pool of 7A Warringah Road. The treatment of the undercroft area is unacceptable; Change of landscaping growing effectively under the gazebo is little to none. Comment: The treatment to the undercroft is satisfactory. The gazebo indicated in the plans would exceed Council’s height limit;


Page 189

Comment: The height of the gazebo is satisfactory. The gazebo-like structure will be at the same height as the bedroom of our property

and therefore will significantly compromise privacy etc. Comment: To reduce privacy conflicts with the adjoining property at 1 Warringah Road the recommendation includes a reduction in the width of the deck by 1m. The gazebo like structure is clearly designed as an entertainment point and will in all

likelihood be particularly noisy especially given its close proximity to adjoining bedrooms;

Comment: Noise arising from the normal residential use of the proposed area is unlikely to have a sustained detrimental impact. The property is clearly out of character with adjoining properties. It is a type of tree

house gazebo structure that will be both an eyesore and particularly out of character with all adjoining properties, including the owners;

Comment: Elevated terraces and balconies are not unusual in the locality. The proposed gazebo is not assessed to be incongruous with the character of the locality. It is a particularly odd proposal; Comment: The assessment has found that the proposal is satisfactory in the context of surrounding development. The impact of the proposal on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views is assessed to be reasonable subject to the conditions recommended. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. The assessment has found the proposal to be reasonable in the context of surrounding development. The impact of the proposal on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views is assessed to be reasonable subject to the conditions recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Hosking Munro Pty Ltd. The owners are S J and K Bennett. The estimated value of works is $158, 400. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected.


Page 190




Survey Ref No 405 16 November Adam Clerke Surveyors Pty Ltd

DA00 issue B 15 March 2010 Hosking Munro

DA01 issue C 18 November 2009

Hosking Munro

DA02 issue D 15 March 2010 Hosking Munro

DA03 issue C 15 March 2010 Hosking Munro



Job No 12.09 Dwg No.1 14 August 2009 Marcia Hosking



Statement of Environmental Effect

6 October 2009 Hosking Munro

Landscaped area variation request

6 October 2009 Hosking Munro

2. No approval is given to disturbance of the rock outcrops under the approved deck aside from the footings associated with the deck.






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


Page 191

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



Amendments to Plans

4. To ensure reasonable privacy is maintained to the adjoining property, the suspended deck is to be reduced in depth by one (1) metre and a 1.8m high privacy screen measured from the deck level is to be erected for the full extent of the western side of the suspended deck. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

Waste Management Plan

5. A waste management plan (see appendix of the relevant DCP) is to be submitted with the construction certificate.







9. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 7A Warringah Road, 3 Warringah Road and 22 Fairfax Road which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.


Page 192



Retaining Walls


Sydney Water







Long Service Levy


Security Deposit



Page 193




















Page 194

Home Building Act



that Act,
















Page 195











Asbestos Material









Page 196



Site Work Hours













Dust Control

32. Appropriate measures (e.g. fine water spray) shall be employed during demolition, excavation and construction works to prevent the emission of dust and other


Page 197

impurities into the surrounding environment. All such measures shall be co-ordinated with site sedimentation controls to ensure polluted waters do not leave the site.

Council Property



Drainage




Private Open Space Areas

37. Natural ground levels of private open space areas must not to be altered to ensure adjoining properties are not adversely affected in terms of stormwater runoff or privacy.




Tree Preservation




Page 198



Weeds





Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans





Page 199



















Page 200

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES



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

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

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

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

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

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

(viii) Following the issue of the Occupation Certificate an inspection fee of $140.00 (per inspection) is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028 in order to release the footpath security deposit.


Page 201




Page 202

EP/65 24 Musgrave Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.340.1

PROPOSAL: External alterations to an existing dwelling house including new stone pathways and stairs, reconfiguration of existing external stairs, new lift, pergola and side fence, new swimming pool and landscaping works

REPORTING OFFICER: Ana Vissarion, Town Planner



LOCALITY MAP

SP 3780

DP 919407

11

1

DP 919852

DP 922512

DP

1086184

SP

DP 331

DP 96130

DP 9631

SP 100

DP 313

SP 68464

14

DP6

DP

354849

DP 920301

SP 72396

DP

907

314

AS

P 7

062

4

DP

32

7998

1

A

B B

DP 449492

1

11

3A

12

DP

323801

DP 919545

DP1124017

SP 14848

SP 55753

SP

SP 30460

1

SP 43233

SP 16557

SP 2724

SP 15768

SP 6375

SP 30459

SP 15767

BA

DP

313

281

SP 35032

SP 111

SP 12152

C

A

B

1

DP 25927

DP

323801

3B

DP 449492

SP 53151

SP 57320

21

1

SP 39815

DP

589568

X

12

Y

1

3 DP 32915

DP

110

1886

DP 399878

DP 580882

DP 771562

SP 5796

2022

4

43

24

313

335

373

941

24

A

27

142

23

2529

4

34A

24A

30 34

38

4036

18A

16A

18

16

20

22

6

1311

15

20A

26 8C

22A

2822B

1010A 8A 8

6A

CHARLES DANSIE WALK

ST

MCLEOD

MU

SG

RA

VE

STREET


Page 203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal seeks approval for external alterations to an existing heritage listed dwelling house including new stone pathway and stairs, reconfiguration of existing external stairs, new lift, timber pergola and side fence, new swimming pool and associated landscaping works. Submissions were received on behalf of four (4) adjoining properties raising concern in relation to overlooking, acoustic privacy, landscaping, stormwater and works on neighbouring properties. While the proposal does not comply with Council’s landscape requirement for the site, the assessment of the proposal finds that landscaped area objectives are satisfied and subject to conditions, the proposal will have reasonable impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposal is recommended for approval with conditions.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Musgrave Street, between Curraghbeena Point and McLeod Street. The site is irregular in shape and accessed via pedestrian stairs and a vehicular right-of way from Musgrave Street. The site presently contains a Victorian two storey sandstone house with tiled roof. The site is identified in MLEP 1998 as an item of local heritage significance. Surrounding development consists of detached single dwelling houses and a medium rise multiple dwelling develoment to the east. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities Yes * Rock faces & retaining walls Yes ** Wetlands No

* In accordance with MRDCP the undergrounding of utilities is only required for new residential development. Not applicable. ** The works proposed are located within the property boundaries and will not affect existing on-street rock faces and retaining walls. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 16 April 2008 DA 8.2008.81.1 was approved for internal alterations to the existing dwelling house. On 19 September 2008 Construction certificate 9.2008.81.1 was issued for the above mentioned works. On 24 September 2008 DA 8.2008.228.1 was approved for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising changes to external openings, elevated walkway and a


Page 204

new bathroom. On 13 July 2008 Construction Certificate 9.2008.228.1 was issued for the above mentioned works. On 28 September 2009 DA 8.2009.120.1 was approved for alterations and additions to a dwelling house, including reconstruction of original verandas, internal ground floor reconfiguration, changes to existing openings and to existing Juliet balcony. On 21 December 2009 Construction Certificate 9. 2009.120.1 was issued by a private certifier. On 3 November 2009 the current development application was lodged. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal comprises the following works: Replace existing tiled roofs of the two carports with metal sheet roofing; Install passenger lift on eastern side of dwelling; Install new fence and driveway gate in the area of the two carports; Demolish northern set of external stairs and construct new retaining walls; Install new stone pathway with stairs to south-east to connect south entrance with the

rear yard; Reconfigure existing external set of stairs, construct new lift and timber pergola over site

entry; Construct new pond and surrounding paving to the north; Replace side fence; Construct a new swimming pool in the rear yard; and Associated landscaping works. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy


Page 205


Zoning 2(b) Residential

Site Area 1239m2

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys No change

Gross Floor Area

Existing 456.2m2 No change

Floorspace Ratio 0.55 : 1 0.37 : 1 No change

Landscaped Area

Existing 706.55m2 507.2m2 N/A

Proposed 706.55m2 472.6m2

(66.88% of required) No


Pool Setbacks

To north-west

To west

2m to coping

2m to coping

1.749m

1.698m

No

No


Catchment) 2005 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area but is not within the wetlands or wetlands buffer area. The site is not an identified strategic foreshore site and it is not listed as containing a heritage item of local significance. Division 2 of Part 3 of the deemed SEPP identifies matters for consideration. The proposal does not affect the biodiversity, ecology and environment protection of the Foreshores and Waterways Area or public access or use of the foreshores and the waterways. Adjoining sites 22A and 22B Musgrave Street separate the site from the waterway. The works will not affect the working harbour or the relationship between foreshore and waterway. The proposal will not affect the foreshore or the scenic quality of Sydney Harbour, nor will it adversely affect views from the site and the surrounding properties. The matters for consideration set out in Division 2 Part 3 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these matters. Part 6 of the deemed Harbour SEPP relates to Wetlands Protection. The matters for consideration at clause 63 have been taken into account and in this regard it is noted that the proposed works will have no impacts on significant vegetation or significant trees. The


Page 206

proposal will not affect the quality of water entering the waterway and will not affect native plant communities or habitats for indigenous and migratory species. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The council must consider the past uses of the land and the proposed use of the land before consenting to a development application. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(b) Residential under MLEP 1998. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The proposal comprises various external works including a new pool and extensive landscaping works to improve areas of usable open space. The proposal will alter the curtilage to the dwelling, however the works are compatible with the heritage values of the building. As the subject site contains an item of local heritage significance, the works were discussed with Council’s Heritage Adviser in terms of potential impact on the heritage item. The proposal satisfies zone objectives. Floorspace Ratio and Height There will be no change to the existing floorspace or height of the dwelling house as a result of the proposal. Landscaped Area The objectives of Clause 15 of MLEP 1998 seek to ensure a dominance of landscape over built form, the maintenance of existing ground levels and to limit excavation on site. As indicated in the numerical compliance table, the site does not comply with the landscaped area requirement. The pool will further diminish the landscaped area by 34.6m2, however the quality of the on-site landscaping is improved by partially replacing lawn areas with the planting of shrubs which will soften the existing bulk of the dwelling house.


Page 207

The required relocation of the pool filter to the sub-floor of the dwelling house by a condition of consent will also yield some additional soft landscaping. The proposal is assessed as satisfying the objectives of Clause 15(1) of MLEP 1998. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 requires consideration to be given to the objectives of the deemed SEPP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed works include the construction of a new swimming pool at the level of the main outdoor area. The pool is screened by vegetation and existing built form from the foreshore and will have an acceptable impact upon the scenic reading of the land from the water. The matters for consideration in Clause (2) have been addressed in the consideration of deemed SEPP Sydney Harbour Catchment. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural water course. Excavation The objective of Clause 31 of MLEP is to control soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with land form modification. The development involves excavation to a depth of approx 1.9m on one side and to approx 0.8m on the other side to accommodate the proposed pool shell. Subject to conditions requiring control of soil erosion and sedimentation during construction works, the extent of excavation associated with the proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard to the matters for consideration listed under Clause 31 of MLEP. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection Map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site is not within a heritage conservation area; however, it is identified in MLEP 1998 as an item of local heritage significance. The statement of significance indicates that the house is evidence of early residential development around Mosman Bay. Clause 37 of MLEP 1998 requires that when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider:


Page 208

(a) the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance, curtilage and setting of the item, and

(b) the impact of the proposed development on any significant view to or from the heritage item.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser. He advised that the works will have a satisfactory impact on the heritage item and has recommended approval in regard to heritage issues. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale Section 4.2 of MRDCP requires development to have a scale which is not excessive, to have adequate side setbacks for spatial relief between buildings and to be of a height and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development. The proposal does not alter the siting or scale of the existing heritage listed sandstone house. Works relate to a lift connecting the carport level to the lower-set dwelling itself, replacing the roofing of the two carports, construction of a new pool, fencing and landscaping. The works will enhance the setting of the heritage item and improve amenity. The works enhance views to Mosman Bay from the rear outdoor space of the heritage item and achieve reasonable privacy impacts on adjoining properties. The proposal meets the guidelines and the objectives of Section 4.2 of the MRDCP. Views No significant views or vistas from neighbouring sites or public places will be affected by the proposal. Landscaping The proposal does not affect any significant surrounding vegetation and no trees are proposed for removal. Although the site is deficient in the provision of landscaped area, the


Page 209

proposal will enhance the quality of private open space areas on the site and improve the landscape separation to neighbouring properties. Streetscape and Building Design Due to topography and siting of the dwellings in the area, the site is not visible from Musgrave Street streetscape. Car Parking and Access The proposal involves the replacement of old roofs over the two carports and construction of a new fence, driveway gate and lift to connect the carport level with the dwelling level. No change is proposed to the number of on-site car parking spaces. Privacy The subject and adjoining properties enjoy views to Mosman Bay. Given the topography of the site and orientation of dwellings to the view, some mutual overlooking between neighbouring sites currently exists. Past subdivisions and consolidations have resulted in the subject site being separated on 3 sides by right-of-ways. The proposal does not increase overlooking to or from the rear yard of the heritage item or from the proposed pool area towards rooms or outdoor areas of adjoining properties. Nonetheless, so as not to diminish privacy for 22B Musgrave Street, the recommendation requires an increase in the pool setback to 2m from any boundary and relocation of the pool filter away from the boundaries. These measures will ensure adequate separation of the swimming pool from the boundary and screen planting to the balcony of 22B Musgrave Street. This assessment has found that the privacy impacts generated by the proposal are reasonable with regard for objectives and guidelines at Section 5.6 of MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposed works will not result in additional overshadowing of properties. The proposal is satisfactory with regard for the objectives at Section 5.8 of MRDCP. Stormwater Management The following factors were taken into consideration in the assessment of the application: No additional hard paved areas are proposed with this application; All drainage and overflow from the swimming pool is directed to the sewer; The BASIX Certificate associated with the application requires installation of a rainwater

tank to collect rainwater runoff for us in pool top-up; and A 10,000L rainwater tank for landscape irrigation is proposed with the application. The application was referred to Council’s Manager Assets and Services who initially made the following comments:

“There is insufficient information regarding the validity of the drainage easement through the downstream property in Musgrave Street. Please provide information to confirm that you have an easement through the downstream property and that it can


Page 210

be utilised for stormwater. When this information is received the application will be assessed.”

After the required information was submitted by the applicant, Council’s Manager Assets and Services made the following comments:

“I have reviewed the stormwater plans and the current easements. It is considered that the new proposal and the current drainage system are satisfactory.”

The proposed works are found to have a satisfactory impact both on the quality and quantity of stormwater run-off when the above are considered. Waste Management The applicant has submitted a waste management plan with the development application. The proposal meets the outcomes and planning guidelines relating to waste management. Swimming Pool The proposal includes a swimming pool within the rear yard. Due to the slope of the ground, the pool is elevated above the ground level on its western side. The height and siting of the pool minimises excavation and achieves level access from the rear lawn area. Screen planting within the setback area which varies from 2m to 4m will achieve reasonable separation to adjoining properties. Conditions of consent relating to the pool and included in the recommendation relate to: (a) lighting of the swimming pool being designed so as to avoid glare and light spill onto

adjoining recreation areas, habitable rooms and public spaces; (b) the swimming pool equipment being located within the subfloor of the dwelling house; (c) the swimming pool being fenced in accordance with The Swimming Pools Act 1992;

and (d) drainage and overflow from the swimming pool being directed to the sewer. Subject to conditions the proposal is satisfactory with regard for objectives and guidelines at section 7.4 of the MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. The proposed works are assessed to have responded appropriately to the site constraints, are in sympathy with the architecture and the heritage character of the dwelling house and maintain the desired character of the area. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.3.3 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is within the foreshores and waterways boundary as shown on the Foreshores and Waterways Area Map and as such the Foreshore DCP applies to the subject site.


Page 211

Section 3 of the Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP refers to landscape character types. The Landscape Character type for the subject site is Type 8 and the DCP indicates that these areas have a high level of built form with waterside commercial, industrial and residential uses.

There are special features in these areas that contribute to the visual character of the area that should be maintained. Any development within landscaped area Type 8 is to satisfy the following performance criteria: vegetation is integrated with land-based development to minimise the contrast between

natural and built elements;

design and mitigation measures are provided to minimise noise and amenity impacts between incompatible land uses;

the maritime uses on the Harbour are preserved; and

remaining natural features that are significant along the foreshore are preserved and views of these features are maintained.

The Terrestrial Ecological Community identified for the area is Urban Development with Scattered Trees. The proposal does not include the removal of any trees, includes new landscaping to blend with the existing surrounds and will have a reasonable visual impact when seen from the waterway. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP. 5.3.4 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (RDCP) identifies sandstone retaining walls, rock outcrops, divided roads with natural rock or sandstone block walls and cut sandstone cliff faces as important character elements in a number of townscape areas.

A number of significant Council retaining walls within road boundaries are identified on Musgrave Street. However, the site is separated from Musgrave Street by a number of sites and existing pedestrian and vehicular access to the site remain unchanged. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

The proposed works are in accordance with previous discussion with the applicant and will have no significant adverse heritage impact on the item. I recommend approval in this regard.


Page 212

Council’s Manager Assets and Services made the following comments before recommending a number of conditions:

I have reviewed the stormwater plans and the current easements. It is considered that the new proposal and the current drainage system are satisfactory.

There were no comments from other Council Departments or State Authorities. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 12 November and 27 November 2009. Multiple submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 24A Musgrave Street; 22A Musgrave Street; 22B Musgrave Street; and 26 Musgrave Street. Matters raised within public submission and commentary on those matters are summarised below: 24A Musgrave Street requests that a Dilapidation Report on the right of way and also

to the adjacent retaining wall to the east of the premises; Comment: A condition of consent will address this issue. The proposal does not have sufficient landscape area and lack of landscape will

exacerbate overlooking from proposed swimming pool towards 22B Musgrave Street; Comment: The quantity and quality of landscaping provided is well distributed to maintain reasonable privacy for both properties, to separate the pool from the adjoining houses and to soften the bulk of the existing on-site structures. The proposed swimming pool is not located at existing ground level and is not set

back 2m from any boundaries as required by MRDCP, resulting in less than 9 metres distance between pool coping and the verandah of 22B Musgrave Street, as required by AMCORD;

Comment: A 2 metres setback of the pool from the boundary is recommended. The 9m separation distance referred to in AMCORD, (The Australian Model Code for Residential Development) relates to “to living-area windows of dwellings facing each other” and not the distance between a pool and a verandah. The pool equipment located in the north-western corner of the property will increase

potential for noise and vibration for the neighbour at 22B Musgrave Street; Comment: A condition of consent will require relocation of the pool equipment away from boundaries. The pool will generate unreasonable noise impacts for 22A and 22B Musgrave Street; Comment: The separation of the pool from the boundary is reasonable. Normal domestic use of the pool is unlikely to cause unreasonable amenity impacts.


Page 213

The location of the pool will generate unreasonable impacts on the adjoining habitable rooms at 22A Musgrave Street;

Comment: Privacy aspects associated with the proposal are addressed in the body of this report. Works are encroaching the neighbouring site (22A Musgrave Street); Comment: A condition of consent will require all works to be contained within the property boundaries. Landscaping works in rear garden already started; Comment: The site inspection did not reveal that landscaping works had started. Works to side fences already started and one gate opens onto right-of-way owned by

26 Musgrave Street; Comment: The site inspection revealed that a temporary construction fence was erected to facilitate previously approved work.; There is no stormwater easement in place for the benefit of No 24 Musgrave Street

and any works on this site will cause damage to the properties at 22A and 22 B Musgrave Street. The current and proposed stormwater disposal is inadequate;

Comment: Matters relating to stormwater management have been addressed in the body of this report. Council’s Manager Assets and Services has reviewed the documentation and advised that the proposal is satisfactory in regard to stormwater issues and represents improvement to the previously existing situation. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. Having regard to the merit assessment of the proposal, Council may be satisfied that the development has been responsibly designed in relation to the opportunities and constraints of the site and provides for acceptable levels of amenity for future residents. Subject to conditions with regard to pool setbacks and relocation of pool equipment, the proposal will minimise adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Approval is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Architectural Projects Pty Ltd. The owners are Mr T M & Mrs K R Robinson. The estimated value of works is $503,280. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected.


Page 214




Detail Survey 11 April 2008 Craig & Rhodes

DA (4) 01; DA (4) 06; DA (4) 07; all issue C

27 October 2009 Architectural Projects

DA (4) 03; DA (4) 04; DA (4) 05; all issue B

25 September 2009

Architectural Projects

Planting / Details Plan 22 September 2009

Paul Bangay Garden Design

Document title Date of document Prepared by


September 2009 Architectural Projects Pty Ltd Architects

Heritage Impact Statement April 2009 Architectural Projects Pty Ltd Architects

BASIX Certificate No. A67747

29 September 2009

NSW Government – Department of Planning

Waste Management Plan 24 September 2009

Applicant

Letter with Attachment 22 December 2009 Architectural Projects Pty Ltd and CRAIG & RHODES (attach.)


Page 215






2. In order to comply with Planning Guideline P7 in Section 7.4 of MRDCP and ensure adequate area for planting, the proposed pool is to be relocated such that a minimum setback of 2m is achieved from its south-west corner to any boundary. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

3. In order to minimise potential impacts on adjoining neighbours and maximise landscaping, all pool equipment shall be relocated into the sub-floor below the Guest Bedroom (G.21). The area shown to be occupied on plans by the pool filter and surroundings shall be landscaped according to the definition of ‘landscaped area’ in MLEP 1998. Details are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.







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


Page 216

either be rectified at the applicant’s expense or compensated by deduction from the security deposit.


7. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 22B Musgrave Street, eastern driveway access / right-of-way and retaining wall of 24A Musgrave Street and northern footpath access / right-of-way of 26 Musgrave Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



Retaining Walls


Stormwater 10. Stormwater shall be disposed of in the current stormwater system on the site. Areas

not directed to this system are to be directed to the new rainwater tanks. Overflow is to be disposed of through dispersal on the site.

Sydney Water





BASIX Certificate



Page 217

Long Service Levy


Security Deposit


Section 94A Contribution











(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and



Page 218

other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.






Home Building Act



that Act,









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


Page 219

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













22. All works are to be contained within the property boundaries.






Page 220







Site Work Hours













Page 221

Council Property



31. The finished external surface materials, including colours and texture of any building, shall match the detail and materials of the existing building.


33. To minimise glare nuisance, the reflectivity index of the glass is not to be more than 20%.




Tree Preservation




BASIX Certificate

37. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated September 29, 2009.



Page 222






Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans





element, and prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, and


Page 223

prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation














BASIX Certificate







Page 224



PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES


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






AGL Sydney Limited for any change or alteration to gas line infrastructure;


Page 225

Energy Australia for any change or alteration to electricity infrastructure or encroachment within transmission line easements;

Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their telecommunications infrastructure.









Page 226

EP/66 Garage - 9A Musgrave Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.225.1

PROPOSAL: Excavation and Construction of a new double garage and extension of driveway to a semi-detached dwelling.


LODGEMENT DATE: 12 August 2009 (Downtime 21 days)


LOCALITY MAP

DP 104765

D P540158

11

2

DP 922602

SP 4339

1

SP 69443

SP 19681

1

11

3

2

DP 827938

DP

917

263

DP

917

281

SP 45081

DP

831

785

1

SP

204

7

DP 115335

11

1

1

DP 174505

DP 920666

DP 931570

DP 934840

SP 77449

2

A

DP

304

385D P

534080

SP 1450

SP 45033

DP

555

101

12

11

DP

927

379

SP 13791

1

1

DP

544

789

DP

921

091

DP

921

470

1

1

DP 947463

DP

951

864

1

DP 115870

SP

177

3

SP

121

30

1

1

1 21 DP 926798

SP

139

69D

P 7

2523

9

DP

7520671100

SP 75301

SP

117

47

1A

B1

DP 366159

DP

920

931

DP 920932

DP 366159

DP

9477811

SP

385

90 17

1416

16

18

14A

12B

1012

A

8

911

15

57

11

5

2

4

1

3

3

6

22A

6B

79A

9B

6A 6

2A

15

4

1111

A

86

6

1719

10

17

4A

2

HERRON WALK

RA

GLA

N

MU

SG

RA

VE


Page 227

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed development is for excavation and construction of a new double garage and extension of driveway to a semi-detached dwelling. Two (2) submissions were received. The assessment has found that the proposed cantilevered driveway structure will have a satisfactory impact on the streetscape of Musgrave Street. The cantilevered driveway will blend into the previous extension. The garage itself will not be highly visible in the visual catchment of the street, the foreshore or Mosman Bay. A separate works on Council property is required for the driveway. Given the sensitive nature of the site this is recommended to form a deferred commencement condition. Subject to the conditions of consent outlined in the recommendation, the application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the eastern side of Musgrave Street, between Herron Walk and McLeod Street. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 8.84m to Musgrave Street. The site falls 7.88m to the west at an average gradient of 20%. The site presently contains a semi detached dwelling. Surrounding development consists of detached and attached dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The subject site has been in a severe dilapidated state for some time. Complaints regarding the state of the property date from the early 1990’s. There have been a number of orders issued including that to repair dilapidating roof and walls, clear the overgrowth and debris and other fire safety orders. Development application 8.1999.596.1 was granted consent for the restoration of the front verandah on 10 February 2000. A heritage grant was dependant on these approved works. It would appear that the works were not carried out and the grant was not issued.


Page 228

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Excavation for a double garage; and Extension of a driveway including cantilevered structure over Council footpath. No concurrent approval is sought under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993. Additional information Amended plans and additional information at the request of Council were received on 23 February 2010. A schedule of changes is as follows: Double garage reduced to 36sqm; Garage now setback 2.6m from southern boundary; Additional screen planting provided between south garage wall and boundary; Additional screen planting provided on the southern edge of the garage roof. The amendments represent improvement to the previously notified plans and were not renotified pursuant to section 12.2 of the Notifications DCP. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning Residential 2(c)

Site Area 300m2 379.4m2 N/A





Page 229


Gross Floor Area

Existing 259.75m2 (dwelling) N/A

Proposed 17.4m2(garage) N/A

Total 227.6 277.15m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.6 : 1 0.73 : 1 (+21%) No*

Landscaped Area

Proposed 189.7m2 197m2 Yes

* The subject site contains a heritage item and therefore benefits from the heritage incentives contained in Clause 38.


Setbacks

Garage – north

Garage – south

2m

0.9m

0m

1m (stairs)

2.6m (garage)

No

Yes

Yes

Parking

Garage / Carport Width

1 spaces

3.5m

2 spaces

6m

Yes

Yes



>2 hours Yes


Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Pursuant to Clause 3 and 5 of the SEPP the instrument applies to the subject site. As the works are land based, Mosman Council is the relevant consent authority. The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and as such the matters for consideration under Part 3 of the SEPP apply:

Biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection

The matters for consideration (a) – (i) outlined at Clause 21 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a reasonable impact in this regard.

Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 22 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not impact on public access to and along the foreshore.


Page 230

Maintenance of a working harbour The matters for consideration (a) – (d) outlined at Clause 23 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have no impact on the maintenance of a working harbour.

Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 24 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the works the subject of this application will not alter the existing interrelationship of the waterway and foreshore uses.

Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 25 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the scale, form, design and siting of the proposal as it relates to the scenic qualities of the foreshore and waterway is reasonable.

Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 26 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a satisfactory impact, subject to conditions of consent regarding the balustrade in terms of views obtained to and from the harbour.

Boat storage facilities The matters for consideration (a) – (f) outlined at Clause 27 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not result in an increase or reduction in the number of boat storage facilities.

This application was required to be referred to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee The site is not identified as land comprising acid sulphate soils or wetlands protection under the provisions of the SEPP. The site is not an identified strategic site and is also not identified on the relevant Sydney Harbour Catchment maps as containing a heritage item or being in the vicinity of any heritage items. Accordingly, Part 4 and Part 5 of the SEPP do not apply. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned residential 2(c).


Page 231

The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposal complies with the numerical requirement and objectives of clause 13 height limits in residential zones of MLEP 1998 with a wall height of 3.31m, a building height of 3.31m and a maximum of 1 storey. Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a gross floor area of 277.15m2 and a floorspace ratio of 0.73:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.6:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 49.51 m2 or 21%. This proposal includes 17.4m2 of additional floor space. Clause 38(2) Conservation incentives of MLEP 1998 applies to the proposal. Clause 38 outlines two forms of incentive for heritage listed items to ensures their conservation. Specifically clause 38(2) states (2) When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a

heritage item is located, the Council may for the purpose of determining: (a) the floorspace ratio, and (b) The number of parking spaces to be provided on the site,

Exclude the floor space of the building from its calculation of the floor space of the buildings erected on the land, but only if it is satisfied that: (c) the exclusion would not result tin development that would adversely affect the

heritage significance of the heritage item, and (d) the conservation of the heritage depends on the exclusion.

As addressed below the proposed works satisfy heritage provisions of MLEP 1988. Furthermore the applicant has demonstrated that the conservation of the building depends on the proposed works. For completeness the objectives for floorspace ratios in residential zones are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of the objectives below:

a) to control the scale of development so that it is compatible with housing characteristics of the locality

The scale of the proposal is compatible with the housing characteristics of the

locality.

b) to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purposes of landscaping and containing urban run-off.

The proposal involves a moderate amount of excavation, however sufficient area

remains for landscaping and the containment of urban runoff.


Page 232

c) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development.

The proposed development is compatible with the surrounding development in terms of bulk and scale, as it presents to the public domain. Environmental impacts from the proposed building volume are assessed as reasonable.

The proposal does not adversely impact the adjoining development with regard to privacy loss, overshadowing or view loss that would otherwise warrant refusal.

Landscaped Area The proposal complies with the numerical requirement and objectives of clause 15 landscape area in residential zones of MLEP 1998 with a landscaped area of 197.7sqm, representing 52% of the site area. The proposed garage extension requires the removal of two trees being a small Camphor laurel and mature Cedar Wattle tree. An arboricultural assessment was submitted with the report noting the Camphor laurel tree is in poor condition and the Cedar Wattle tree is located in a ‘precarious position on top the edge of the rocky outcrop and considered at risk’. The application was referred to Council’s Landscape designer who raised no objection to the proposal noting that the Applicant has proposed to protect and retain a more significant landscape species being a Sydney Red Gum. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory. The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of surrounding development and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the foreshore. The proposal meets the clause objectives. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse. Excavation Clause 31 of MLEP requires Council to consider the impact of excavation associated with a proposal upon the local environment. Excavation is required for the double garage fronting Street. A Geotechnical Report, prepared by Douglas Partners, has been submitted in support of the application. With regard to matters for consideration at Clause 31, subject to Council's usual conditions requiring control of soil erosion and sedimentation during construction works, the extent of excavation associated with the proposal is assessed as satisfactory.


Page 233

Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is identified as being in a buffer area with regard to Acid Sulfate Soils, however the works proposed are not in the area identified. Wetlands The site is not located within the vicinity of identified wetlands. Heritage The site contains a heritage item. Schedule 2 of Mosman LEP 1998 lists the ‘Group of 2 houses (3 dwellings)’ at Nos 9A, 9B and 11 Musgrave Street as a heritage item of local significance. The statement of significance for this item as outlined in the Heritage Study reads:

“These are two large, intricately-finished and decorated Arts-and-Crafts houses typical of those on Cremorne Point and Curraghbeena Point that were built in the early years of the Twentieth Century to capitalise on the ferry service and the magnificent setting.”

A further description states:

“Federation Arts-and-Crafts. These houses are prominent structures of brick and timber, two-and-a-half and three storeys high and located on a steep site on the upper side of the road. One has been divided into two occupancies now identified as 9 and 9A, and this has a large gable facing west. The upper storey and gable are shingle-covered and a skillion extension now embraces the tall roughcast chimney. The roof is unglazed terra cotta tiles. No 11 is built of brick up to the springing line of the roof, which has two large gables facing west, sheeted in shingles and incorporating a recessed balcony. There is an asymmetrical rectangular window bay with a flared shingle apron, and the other windows are surface mounted. The roof is slate with terra cotta trim. A skillion-roofed addition has been made on the north side.”

The site is also within immediate proximity of the following two heritage items:

Musgrave Street (divided road) Road Reserve – listed as a heritage item of local significance

Herron Walk Steps, linking Musgrave Street/Raglan Street – listed as a heritage item of local significance.

The site is not within a heritage conservation area. Clause 32, 33, 37 and 38 are relevant to the assessment of the proposed development. Clause 32 lists the heritage conservation objectives. The proposal satisfies all of these objectives as the dwelling is sympathetic to its context. This issue is discussed further in Section 6.0 below. Clause 33 outlines development that requires consent and the matters that Council must consider when determining a development application for these works. These include:


Page 234

(a) the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area, and

(b) a statement of heritage impact that identifies and assesses the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the item and its setting, or on the heritage conservation area, and

(c) a heritage assessment to enable the Council to fully assess the levels of heritage significance of the item and its setting, or of the heritage conservation area.

The applicant has submitted a detailed Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by OCP Architects. This statement concludes that the proposed driveway extension and garage do not have a detrimental impact on the heritage values associates with the building noting that the heritage listed façade can still be seen from Musgrave Street but not the double garage. The application was referred to Council Heritage advisor who raised no objection. Comments are included below. Clause 38 is addressed in the assessment of floorspace. The proposed works for the driveway extension and double garage are not assessed to detrimentally impact the site's heritage significance. The proposed works are satisfactory pursuant to heritage provisions of the MLEP 1988. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.4 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is a heritage item but is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The siting and scale of the proposed scheme is satisfactory. The proposal is compatible with the prevailing development pattern and its character, noting a similar garage structure at 9B Musgrave Street.


Page 235

In certain circumstances Council may allow a nil (0m) setback where there will be minimal adverse affects in adjoining properties, where walls do not contain windows and the wall height is under 3.5m. In this case the wall height has been found to be 3.31m. The proposal also satisfies the other criteria in that the it does not result in an adverse visual impact as the bulk is mitigated by the adjoining garage, and landscaping. The proposal also complies with section 5.8 – Sunlight, Daylight and Overshadowing of the MRDCP, as outlined below. Views Due to the location of the staircase and the local topography the proposal does not impact on private or public views. The proposed works satisfy section 4.3 of MRDCP. Landscaping As outlined in section 5.2 there is no change proposed to the approved landscaped area and landscape plan. The proposed works satisfy section 4.4 of MRDCP. Streetscape and Building Design The garage and driveway design are compatible with the prevailing development pattern and its character. There are other sites in the street which have similar garages with terraces above, located to the front of the dwellings. The proposal satisfactorily responds to planning guideline P1 of section 4.2 of the MRDCP as the proposal adequately responds to the established pattern of development. The adjoining garage at 9A Musgrave Street was also combined with a driveway extension. The proposed materials and finishes are to match and a condition of consent will ensure the balustrade will also match. The proposed driveway extension is assessed to be reasonable as there are no detrimental impacts from the proposal and public access is maintained. The driveway cannot be extended any further due to physical constraints and 9A is the last property requiring vehicle access as the adjoining property 7 Musgrave Street also known as 6b Raglan Street has vehicle access from a side laneway to the south. Planning Guideline P11 of section 5.2 of the Residential DCP requires the colour and surface of external finishes should be sympathetic to neighbourhood character and contribute to the overall impact of the development. Given that the driveway extension is in the public domain, it is appropriate the railing be constructed out of materials in Council colours. The siting and resultant bulk and scale of the proposed garage addition is satisfactory. The proposed garage and driveway extension is satisfactorily integrated into the existing dwelling, ensuring a reasonable streetscape appearance. Car Parking & Access Council’s planning controls do not require any parking spaces for an existing semi-detached dwelling. The applicant submits that the proposed car parking accommodation has been designed having regard to the existing streetscape of Musgrave Street where there are numerous examples of garages located at the street frontage. In particular, the adjoining semi at No 9B Musgrave Street has an identical double garage on the street boundary. There are other examples of garages on the front boundary along Musgrave Street.


Page 236

The construction of the garage structure is designed to integrate into the existing dwelling ensuring a satisfactory streetscape appearance. Accordingly the proposal is satisfactory pursuant to planning guideline P4 of section 5.2 of the MRDCP. The proposed width of the structure is 6m, the width of the structure is similar to that at 9B Musgrave Street. Due to the local topography the subject site is significantly elevated above Musgrave Street itself. As a result the heritage listed façade can still be seen from Musgrave Street but not the double garage. The impact of the structure on the streetscape is accordingly reasonable pursuant to planning guideline P10 of section 5.2 of the MRDCP. Planning guideline P16 of section 5.2 of MRDCP states that ‘structures such as decks and patios etc are not permitted on the roof of the garage or carport’. As outlined below the degree of privacy afforded to the adjoining neighbours is satisfactory. Accordingly the variation to section 5.2 of MRDCP is satisfactory. Privacy The proposal will not result in an unacceptable privacy loss to the adjoining residents. There will be a degree of mutual overlooking of front yards as a result of the terrace above the garage. Mutual overlooking is not unusual on sites where the front/rear yard opens to a Harbour water view as is the case in this instance. Given the prevalence of elevated front terraces and balconies on the adjoining dwellings, its inclusion over the garage in the subject proposal is assessed as reasonable. Potential privacy issues have been addressed through the proposed separation of the garage from the side boundary. The proposed staircase is not so dissimilar to the existing situation to warrant additional privacy controls. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. The proposal will cast additional shadows over the adjoining properties, however the design ensures that these are minimal and remain compliant with the established controls. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Stormwater Management Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.13 of MRDCP. Site Management and Excavation Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP.


Page 237

Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The 2 proposed parking spaces are satisfactory having regard for MTDCP. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.3.4 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is within the foreshores and waterways boundary and as such the Foreshore DCP applies to the subject site. The subject site is identified as having an ‘urban development with scattered trees’ terrestrial ecological community on the Ecological Communities and Landscape Character map. Section 3 of the Foreshores DCP refers to the landscape character types. The landscape character types for the subject site are types 8. The proposal is satisfactory with regards to the relevant performance criteria in that no significant landscape items are proposed to be removed as a result of this application. Section 5 of the Foreshores DCP refers to land based development. Section 5.4 Built Form applies general criteria in particular the following: Use of reflective materials is minimised and the relevant provision of the Building Code of

Australia are satisfied. Colours should be sympathetic with their surrounds. Section 5.14 Inclinators, Stairs And Driveways applies the following criteria to the proposal: Stairs should be a maximum of 1.2m wide. Stairs should be constructed in timber, masonry or stone. Galvanised stairs will only be

permitted where they are painted in colours that blend with their setting. Inclinators, stairs and driveways should be sited to maintain privacy of adjacent

dwellings. Inclinators, stairs and driveway should not obscure or break a view line of a rock or cliff

face. The implementation of soil erosion measures. and Encourage the shared use of access facilities in environmentally sensitive locations. The proposal is satisfactory with regards to the above criteria subject to the inclusion of conditions regarding the finish and colour of the balustrade and site management conditions.


Page 238

5.3.5 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy The proposal is adjacent to an identified significant rock face and retaining wall. The proposal works are subject to a work on council property application. Usual site management conditions of consent will ensure adverse impacts from the works are ameliorated. 5.4.1 Section 79C (1) Assessment of Environmental Effects of Driveway extension. The proposal includes a cantilevered driveway structure over the road reserve and accordingly requires a Works on Council Property application. This is included as a deferred commencement condition. Council approved in 1991 a driveway extension to number 9B Musgrave Street. This proposal further extends the driveway to number 9A Musgrave Street. To ensure public access is maintained to the existing pathway and disruption is minimised to an existing mature Sydney Red Gum, a cantilevered slab edge of the driveway is proposed. A curved split faced concrete block wall to match the existing retaining wall is proposed to close in the undercroft space adjacent to the winding public pathway. A support column encased in matching split face blockwork is proposed to support the cantilevered outer slab edge. 5.4.2 Section 79C (1) (a) Statutory Planning Considerations The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council. As outlined above the proposal is consistent with the aims, objectives and numerical requirements where appropriate of MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. 5.4.3 Section 79C (1) (b) Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Impact on the Natural Environment The driveway extension necessitates the removal of two landscape items, being a small Camphor laurel tree and a Cedar Wattle tree. The assessment has found that there remains reasonable canopy cover in the vicinity of the works. Impact in the Built Environment The driveway extension will continue the materials and finishes of the existing elevated driveway. The proposal will blend into the existing environment. The structure has been designed to reduce its visual bulk by the inclusion of landscape elements and a cantilevered construction. Social and Economic Impacts The proposed works will have no detrimental social or economic impacts. It will aid in the conservation of a currently dilapidated heritage listed building and improve the amenity of the building for future occupants. The public pathway will remain in public use and view. The safety of the public pathway is not diminished by the proposed works. Access, Transport and Traffic The proposal will ensure the provision of two off-street parking spaces. Benefiting both the occupants of the dwelling and others in the generally vicinity through reducing the demand for on-street parking by the occupants of the dwelling.


Page 239

Public Interest The proposal is in the public interests in that: It aids in the conservation of a dilapidated heritage item, and it Reduces the demand for on-street parking by the occupants of the dwelling. 5.5 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

“I consider the proposal is reasonable in terms of impact on the heritage items and their setting. It does not however affect the public walkway which is outside of the site. A separate application in this regard will be required. I would not object to this application in the form submitted on any significant heritage grounds.”

Council’s Manager Assets and Services raised no objection subject to conditions. Council’s Manager Governance made the following comments:

“On the basis of the proposed suspended deck over Council's road reserve being an extension of the existing shared driveway to provide vehicular and pedestrian access only to 9A Musgrave Street and creating a vehicle turnaround area for both 9a and 9B Musgrave Street, no objection is raised to the proposal without the need for a Roads Act lease subject to: 1. The suspended deck being used only for the purpose of a driveway/vehicle

turnaround with no structures to be constructed on the suspended deck. 2. A railing being constructed around the deck and painted in Council colours to

the satisfaction of the MAS. 3. No vehicles are to be parked on the deck as this would impinge upon its use

as a vehicle turnaround area. 4. Satisfactory pedestrian access on the public footpath under the proposed deck

being maintained. Please note that any proposal to provide car parking on the deck would require an application for a lease of the area under the Roads Act.”

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 20 August 2009 and 4 September 2009.


Page 240

Two (2) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 8 Raglan Street; and 6B Raglan Street (also known as 7 Musgrave Street). Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Privacy loss to existing second floor balcony; Privacy loss to bedroom on the first and second floor; Comment: Refer to section 5.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the privacy of adjoining properties. Overshadowing on front yard of 7 Musgrave Street; Comment: Refer to section 5.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the overshadowing of adjoining properties. The owners also own 9B Musgrave Street and can use that one; Comment: The ownership of the property is not relevant to the application. The subject site is on a separate title and ownership can change. This application is to increase area in which water views can be obtained at the

expense of my quiet enjoyment of my property; Comment: Refer to section 5.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining properties with regards to privacy and overshadowing. The wall of the garage will result in a loss of visual amenity; Comment: Refer to sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the provisions of the MLEP 1998 and the MRDCP. The proposed work and the manner in which the material have been coordinated and

designed is not in keeping with the Federation character of the building. It will have a detrimental effect on the curtilage of the building;

Comment: The material and finishes have been deemed acceptable by Council Heritage Advisor. The loss of two trees will have a major visual amenity impact; Comment: Refer to sections 5.2 and 5.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the landscaped area provisions of MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. Lack of structural detail that is critical in understanding the application ; Comment: A separate works on Council property application is required as a deferred commencement conditions. Use of public access;


Page 241

The proposal makes a major change to the public pathway and the safety issue of which are not addressed.

Comment: The public pathway will remain in public view. The safety of the public pathway is not diminished by the proposed works. There is no construction management plan; The application includes major works in the public domain and there is no engineering

design for such an undertaking Comment: Condition of consents require a construction management plan and construction traffic management plan. The retention of the Sydney red Gum is independent of the removal of the two other

trees; There is no landscape plan; Comment: The removal of the two trees is independent of the retention of the Sydney Red Gum. The application has been assessed by Council Officers and has been deemed satisfactory. 8.0 CONCLUSION The development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan, Mosman Transport Development Control Plan and other relevant Council and State planning policies. This assessment has found that the proposed development is acceptable as it will have a reasonable impact on the public domain and adjoining properties. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is OCP Architects. The owners are C and K Stokeld. The estimated value of works is $373,500. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2009.225.1 be approved as a deferred commencement subject to the following conditions: PART A 1. This consent shall not operate until the applicant submits the following information to

the satisfaction of Council:

(a) The applicant is to lodge a Works on Council Property application and provide details of all works on Council property. These are to show at a minimum:


Page 242

(b) Adequate clearance between the public path and the access driveway. This must be sufficient for pedestrians, and comply with any relevant regulations.

(c) Details of a new galvanised steel handrail painted in Council’s colours, to be constructed around the edge of the new access driveway.

(d) Details regarding column supporting the driveway, its footing details and geotechnical details of the embankment which it is supported on.

(e) Such details of the garage and driveway of 9A Musgrave, showing they are structurally separate and non reliant on Council property.

Such information shall be submitted within six (6) months of the date of this determination. Upon written notification from Council that the above has been satisfied, conditions as listed under Part B of this consent shall apply in addition to other conditions nominated in Council's written notification that arise from the information provided in response to Part A.

PART B That in accordance with 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 Council seek the applicant’s written approval for the imposition of the following conditions and grant the General Manager delegated authority to amend or delete conditions following negotiation: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



Survey ref No 8861 September 2008 Drummond Parmenter Pty Ltd

07009 DA 00 Issue A July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

07009 DA 01ssue E February 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

07009 DA 02Issue A July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

07009 DA 03 Issue A February 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

07009 DA 04 Issue A February 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners




17 July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

Letter 23 February 2010 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

Statement of heritage Impact

17 July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

Supplementary Information 11 August 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners


Page 243


Prepared by

Waste Management Plan 10 August 2008 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

Geotechnical Investigation June 2009 Douglas Partners

Arboricultural Impact Assessment

May 2009 Tree Wise Men Australia Pty Ltd













5. To assist with an assessment of claims for the refund of the security deposit over Council’s property, a dilapidation report must be submitted. The report must document and provide photographs that clearly depict any existing damage to the road, kerb, gutter, footpath, driveways, street trees, street signs or any other Council assets in the vicinity of the development. Any damage not shown in this manner will


Page 244

be assumed to have been caused as a result of the site works undertaken and must either be rectified at the applicant’s expense or compensated by deduction from the security deposit.


6. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 9A Musgrave Street and 6B Raglan Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



Retaining Walls


Sydney Water







Long Service Levy

11. In accordance with Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, the applicant shall pay a long service levy at the prescribed rate of 0.35% of the total cost of the work to either the Long Service Payments


Page 245

Corporation or Mosman Municipal Council for any work costing $25,000 or more. To pay the levy online go to https://levy.lspc.nsw.gov.au/.

Security Deposit









Notes:

(1) Council's Traffic Committee meets once every two months. To avoid delays in the commencement of works early lodgement is recommended;

(2) An application fee of $500 per site for Construction Traffic Management Plans applies. When assessment is required within 7 days, the required fee is $1,500 per site; and

(3) Fees will be indexed by use of the Consumer Price Index and the actual amount to be paid will be determined at the date of payment. You may contact Council on 9978 4111 prior to payment to confirm current figures.



Page 246













Home Building Act


(1) in the case of work to be done by the holder of a contractor licence under that Act: (i) the name and licence number of the contractor; and (ii) the name of the insurer by whom the work is insured under Part 6 of

that Act,

(2) in the case of work to be done by the holder of an owner-builder permit under that Act, the name and permit number of the owner-builder.



Page 247






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

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

(3) the hoarding fence must be securely fixed to withstand strong winds (4) the fence must have only one point of entry which must correspond with the


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





18. To limit the potential for damage to the trees to be retained, tree protection measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of site works in accordance with the recommendations/s in the arborist report prepared by Tree Wise Men dated May 2009 (in particular Section 4 – Recommendations) – for tree 1 (Angophora costata) plus 1 x Banksia integrifiolia and 1 x Glochidion ferdinandii.




20. In accordance with Section 95(2) of the Act, this consent shall lapse unless work has physically commenced on the land within 2 years from the date of the consent or in


Page 248

instances where no work is required, the use has commenced within 2 years from the date of the consent.







Partial Demolition


Asbestos Material




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

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

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




Page 249


Site Work Hours



Protection of Public Places

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





(1) protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

(2) where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.






Page 250

Dust Control


Landfill

34. The fill material imported to the site shall consist of virgin excavated natural material as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or be covered by a Resource Recovery Exemption from the Department of Environment and Climate Change.

Council Property





Drainage









Page 251

To minimise disturbance to the trees to be retained, for the duration of site works the tree protection measures recommended in the arborist report prepared Tree Wise Men dated May 2009 (in particular Section 4 – Recommendations) – for tree 1 (Angophora costata) plus 1 x Banksia integrifiolia and 1 x Glochidion ferdinandii are to be maintained in good order.

Arborist Inspections

41. The applicant must engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (Australian Qualification Framework level 5 or above) to assess the impact of the proposed works and employ best practices (e.g. minimise compaction, soil build up and or excavation within primary root zones*) to ensure the longevity of trees to be retained. The arborist is to attend on site during critical stages of excavation and construction works within the vicinity of trees to be retained and is to record the following information;


result of the damage; and any future or ongoing remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the



Tree Preservation




Threatening Process - Phytophthora Root Rot

44. The spread of phytophthora root rot contributes to dieback in trees and has been identified as a key threatening process to native vegetation under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. To minimise the likely spread of phytophthora root rot, control measures shall be implemented during site works including:

cleaning or sterilising machinery, equipment and footwear associated with soil disturbance activities;

preventing the escape of soil from the site; bagging and removing weeds;



Page 252

minimising work activities when the soil conditions are very wet; and using local plant stock from suppliers who are accredited by the Nursery

Industry Association.

Note: Council’s Bushland Officer may be contacted for clarification of the above measures or for further information on the prevention of spread of phytophthora root rot.

Weeds


Lighting


Toilet Facilities


Waste Management







Approved Plans






Page 253
















Follow-up Arborist’s Report

54. As part of the ongoing assessment of the trees to be retained, the arborist engaged by the applicant is to assess their health and any impacts suffered by them as a result of the proposed approved development. Findings are to be compiled in a detailed


Page 254

report to be provided to Council at the completion of construction and prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate which documents the following;


result of the damage; and any future or on-going remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the


PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







DURING OCCUPATION


57. The driveway is only to be used for the purpose of vehicle access. No vehicles at any time are to be parked on the structure.

ADVICE / NOTES





Page 255










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

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

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

(xi) Following the issue of the Occupation Certificate an inspection fee of $140.00 (per inspection) is to be paid at the Cashier’s desk at the Civic Centre to ledger number 1040202.2997.028 in order to release the footpath security deposit.




Page 256

EP/67 Dwelling Alterations - 9A Musgrave Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.351.1

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling comprising internal refurbishment, façade restoration, new windows and ground floor deck extensions


LODGEMENT DATE: 16 November, 2009 OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

LOCALITY MAP

DP 104765

D P540158

11

2

DP 922602

SP 4339

1

SP 69443

SP 19681

1

11

3

2

DP 827938

DP

917

263

DP

917

281

SP 45081

DP

831

785

1

SP

204

7

DP 115335

11

1

1

DP 174505

DP 920666

DP 931570

DP 934840

SP 77449

2

A

DP

304

385D P

534080

SP 1450

SP 45033

DP

555

101

12

11

DP

927

379

SP 13791

1

1

DP

544

789

DP

921

091

DP

921

470

1

1

DP 947463

DP

951

864

1

DP 115870

SP

177

3

SP

121

30

1

1

1 21 DP 926798

SP

139

69D

P 7

2523

9

DP

7520671100

SP 75301

SP

117

47

1A

B1

DP 366159

DP

920

931

DP 920932

DP 366159

DP

9477811

SP

385

90 17

1416

16

18

14A

12B

1012

A

8

911

15

57

11

5

2

4

1

3

3

6

22A

6B

79A

9B

6A 6

2A

15

4

1111

A

86

6

1719

10

17

4A

2

HERRON WALK

RA

GLA

N

MU

SG

RA

VE


Page 257

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling house comprising internal refurbishment, façade restoration, new windows and ground floor deck extensions. This application is complimentary to 8.2009.225.1, for the garage and extension of driveway including cantilevered structure over Council footpath, however it is of no material consequence to the subject application. No (0) submissions were received. The assessment finds the proposal to be satisfactory and will provide much needed attention, restoration and maintenance to a very derelict building. The proposal will restore the heritage listed façade which is a benefit to the Musgrave Streetscape. Subject to conditions of consent, the application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the eastern side of Musgrave Street, between Herron Walk and McLeod Street. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 8.84m to Musgrave Street. The site falls 7.88m to the west at an average gradient of 20%. The site presently contains a semi-detached dwelling house. Surrounding development consists of detached and attached dwelling houses. The Musgrave Street Ferry Wharf is located opposite the site. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The subject site has been in a severe dilapidated state for some time. Complaints regarding the state of the property date from the early 1990’s. There have been of number of orders issued including for the repair of dilapidated roof and walls, clearing overgrowth and debris and other fire safety orders. Development application 8.1999.596.1 was granted consent for the restoration of the front verandah on the 10 February 2000. A heritage grant was dependant on these approved works. It would appear that the works were not carried out and the grant was not issued.


Page 258

8.2009.225.1 The applicant lodged a separate application for: A double garage; and Extension of driveway including cantilevered structure over Council footpath. Whilst this application is complimentary to the consent that is sought, it is of no material consequence to the subject application. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling, comprising internal refurbishment, façade restoration, new windows and ground floor deck extensions. Specifically works include the follow; Internally

Repair and replace termite damaged floors and joinery to ground and first floor, Select demolition of walls to form new openings and layout, Provide new plaster walls to form new kitchen, laundry and toilet, and New air conditioning service.

Externally

Remove verandah infills (previously kitchenette spaces), Repair and restore timber verandahs and timber balustrade, shine and prime paint, Replace non-original windows with new windows to the southwest corner and central

area to family room at attic floor level, Provide new sashes and glazing to west faced windows to family room at attic floor

level, Replace existing front windows with a pair of glazed doors with highlights to ground

floor living room opening onto the verandah, Provide new double hung window to living room where now missing, Provide new timber front deck and steps to front garden and lattice privacy screen, Restore front stone porch and steps, Replace skylight over stairs, Repair gutters and down pipes, Prune back overgrown landscape and remove rear garden shed, and Painting, which shall be undertaken with restoration works also approved at 9B

Musgrave Street. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. Additional information Following an initial referral to Council’s heritage advisor on 12 December 2009, a meeting was held with the applicant on 22 January 2010. Amended plans were discussed and further amendments were sought as confirmed by letter sent on 4 February 2010 requiring the following; 1. Changes to address issues raised by Council’s Heritage Consultant

In order to arrive at a more sympathetic design, Council would prefer that an en-suite be located on the verandah (similar to the adjoining semi) to avoid wholesale re-


Page 259

planning of the interior. Glazing to the west should be limited to the existing form. Roof lantern style insertion would be acceptable on both semis.

Amended plans were received on 15 February 2010 with the following changes: Original staircase has been re-instated on all levels and the proposed new staircase

deleted Front rooms have been re-established and less re-planning to the interior, Ensuite to 1st floor has been deleted, The south-west attic window circa 1970’s has been reinstated to its existing form and re-

glazed, Western skylight above stairwell has been deleted. These amended plans form the basis of the assessment. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning Residential 2(c)

Site Area 300m2 379.4m2 N/A

Building Height 8.5m 13.7m No change

Wall Height 7.2m 10.6m No change

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 3 storeys No change

Gross Floor Area

Existing 259.75m2 (dwelling) N/A

Proposed 17.4m2(garage) N/A

Total 227.6 277.15m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.6 : 1 0.73 : 1 (+21%) No


Page 260


Landscaped Area

Proposed 189.7m2 197m2 Yes



Setbacks

Garage – north

Garage – south

2m

0.9m

0m

1m (stairs)

2.6m (garage)

No

Yes

Yes

Parking

Garage / Carport Width

1 spaces

3.5m

2 spaces

6m

Yes

No



>2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate N/A


Catchment) 2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Pursuant to Clause 3 and 5 of the SEPP the instrument applies to the subject site. As the works are land based, Mosman Council is the relevant consent authority. The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and as such the matters for consideration under Part 3 of the SEPP apply:

Biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection

The matters for consideration (a) – (i) outlined at Clause 21 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a reasonable impact in this regard.

Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 22 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not impact on public access to and along the foreshore.

Maintenance of a working harbour The matters for consideration (a) – (d) outlined at Clause 23 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have no impact on the maintenance of a working harbour.


Page 261

Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 24 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the works the subject of this application will not alter the existing interrelationship of the waterway and foreshore uses.

Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 25 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the scale, form, design and siting of the proposal as it relates to the scenic qualities of the foreshore and waterway is reasonable.

Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 26 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a satisfactory impact on views obtained to and from the harbour.

Boat storage facilities The matters for consideration (a) – (f) outlined at Clause 27 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not result in an increase or reduction in the number of boat storage facilities.

This application was not required to be referred to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee. The site is not identified as land comprising acid sulphate soils or wetlands protection under the provisions of the SEPP. The site is not an identified strategic site and is also not identified on the relevant Sydney Harbour Catchment maps as containing a heritage item or being in the vicinity of any heritage items. Accordingly, Part 4 and Part 5 of the SEPP do not apply. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.


Page 262

5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned residential 2(c). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposal does not alter compliance with clause 13 of MLEP 1998. There is no change to the dwellings wall height, building height or number of storeys. Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a gross floor area of 277.15m2 (including garage) and a floorspace ratio of 0.73:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.6:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 49.51 m2 or 21%. The works proposed do not seek to increase the floor space of the dwelling. Clause 38(2) Conservation incentives of the MLEP 1998 applies to the proposal. Clause 38 outlines two forms of incentive for heritage listed items to ensures their conservation. Specifically clause 38(2) states (2) When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a

heritage item is located, the Council may for the purpose of determining: (a) The floorspace ratio, and (b) The number of parking spaces to be provided on the site,

Exclude the floor space of the building from its calculation of the floor space of the buildings erected on the land, but only if it is satisfied that: (c) The exclusion would not result tin development that would adversely affect the

heritage significance of the heritage item, and (d) The conservation of the heritage depends on the exclusion.

The proposed works do not detrimentally impact the site's heritage significance and are satisfactory pursuant to heritage provisions of MLEP 1988. Furthermore the applicant has demonstrated that the conservation of the building depends on the proposed works. Landscaped Area The proposal complies with the numerical requirement and objectives of clause 15 landscape area in residential zones of MLEP 1998 with a landscaped area of 197.7sqm, representing 52% of the site area. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory.


Page 263

The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of surrounding development and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the foreshore. The proposal meets the clause objectives. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse. Excavation No additional excavation is proposed under this application. Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is identified as being in a buffer area with regard to Acid Sulfate Soils, however the works proposed are not in the area identified. Wetlands The site is not located within the vicinity of identified wetlands. Heritage The site contains a heritage item. Schedule 2 of Mosman LEP 1998 lists the ‘Group of 2 houses (3 dwellings)’ at Nos 9A, 9B and 11 Musgrave Street as a heritage item of local significance. The statement of significance for this item as outlined in the Heritage Study reads:

“These are two large, intricately-finished and decorated Arts-and-Crafts houses typical of those on Cremorne Point and Curraghbeena Point that were built in the early years of the Twentieth Century to capitalise on the ferry service and the magnificent setting.”

A further description states:

“Federation Arts-and-Crafts. These houses are prominent structures of brick and timber, two-and-a-half and three storeys high and located on a steep site on the upper side of the road. One has been divided into two occupancies now identified as 9 and 9A, and this has a large gable facing west. The upper storey and gable are shingle-covered and a skillion extension now embraces the tall roughcast chimney. The roof is unglazed terra cotta tiles. No 11 is built of brick up to the springing line of the roof, which has two large gables facing west, sheeted in shingles and incorporating a recessed balcony. There is an asymmetrical rectangular window bay with a flared shingle apron, and the other windows are surface mounted. The roof is slate with terra cotta trim. A skillion-roofed addition has been made on the north side.”

The site is also within immediate proximity of the following two heritage items:


Page 264

Musgrave Street (divided road) Road Reserve – listed as a heritage item of local significance

Herron Walk Steps, linking Musgrave Street/Raglan Street – listed as a heritage item of local significance.

The site is not within a heritage conservation area. Clause 32, 33, 37 and 38 are relevant to the assessment of the proposed development. Clause 32 lists the heritage conservation objectives. The proposal satisfies all of these objectives as the dwelling is sympathetic to its heritage conservation area context. Clause 33 outlines development that requires consent and the matters that Council must consider when determining a development application for these works. These include:

(a) the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area, and

(b) a statement of heritage impact that identifies and assesses the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the item and its setting, or on the heritage conservation area, and

(c) a heritage assessment to enable the Council to fully assess the levels of heritage significance of the item and its setting, or of the heritage conservation area.

The applicant has submitted a detailed Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by OCP Architects. This statement concludes that the proposal is reasonable and summarises the works as follows: Restoration, repair and placement of termite damaged fabric, Select demolition of wall and openings to create and interconnect rooms, Modification of window into French door opening onto the verandahs; Modification of southwest corner attic window, Provision of new services throughout, External restoration and repairs. The statement further states that their support is based on the following key elements: Much needed attention to this derelict property, Implementation of the proposal has minimal impact, Restoration and maintenance of this significant heritage item is opportune and timely, Re-establishment of its heritage value and thereby significance of the pair, Improve the overall amenity of the property to suit a contemporary lifestyle, Improve natural lighting and solar penetration to the property, Enhancement of the statement and landscape for neighbours and visitors, An important contribution to Mosman’s history and character. The existing property is in a derelict state and desperate need of restoration and maintenance. This application has been amended to address the concerns of Council’s Heritage Advisor. The amended plans were referred to Council Heritage Advisor who raised no objection, comments are included below. The BASIX certificate requires external sun protection in the form of external blinds to west facing windows. The Applicant and Council’s heritage advisor both believe that this will have


Page 265

a detrimental impact in the heritage façade, accordingly a condition of consent requiring their deletion. This is included in the recommendation below. Clause 38 is address in the floorspace discussion above. The proposed works for the alterations and additions to the dwelling are not assessed to detrimentally impact the subject sites heritage significance. The proposed works are satisfactory pursuant to the heritage provisions of MLEP 1988. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is a heritage item but is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The siting and resultant bulk and scale of the proposed scheme is satisfactory. The building design is compatible with the prevailing development pattern and its character. The application does not proposed changes to the setbacks of the existing dwelling. Views Due to the location of the subject site and the local topography the proposal does not impact on private or public views. The proposed works satisfy section 4.3 of MRDCP. Landscaping As outlined in section 5.2 the proposed landscaping is satisfactory. The proposed works satisfy section 4.4 of MRDCP.


Page 266

Streetscape and Building Design The building form, scale and siting of the proposed alterations and additions, and landscaping are compatible with the prevailing development pattern and character in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. The proposal will restore the heritage listed façade which is a benefit to the Musgrave Streetscape. Car Parking & Access See below for assessment under MTDCP. Privacy The proposal will not result in an unacceptable privacy loss to the adjoining properties as the proposed staircase does not result in any new view of adjoining properties for the occupants of 9B Musgrave Street. The larger windows are orientated to the south west to the Harbour water view and are not considered to result in undue privacy loss for the adjoining residents. The proposed ground floor deck extension includes a privacy screen to the south to ensure there is no conflict with the adjoining neighbour at no.6B Raglan Street. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. The proposal does not alter the existing building envelope and therefore no change to the existing shadows cast by the dwelling will result. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 indicates that the provisions of the BASIX Certificate override DCP provisions which would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to achieve the fulfilment of the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.13 of MRDCP. Site Management and Excavation Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP.



Page 267

Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal is complimentary to 8.2009.225.1 which proposes: Excavation for double garage; and Extension of driveway including cantilevered structure over Council footpath. Whilst this application is complimentary to the consent that is sought above, it is of no material consequence to the subject application. If the above application is either not approved or not constructed the proposal will maintain the existing status quo of no (0) parking on site, as this proposal does not increase the density, it would remain satisfactory. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan does not apply to this proposal. Pursuant to section 1.5 of the Section 94A plan ‘development which in the opinion of Council is for the conservation purposes to items listed as heritage items in Schedule 2 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998’ is exempt. The proposed works clearly relate to the conservation of the heritage listed item. 5.3.4 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is within the Foreshores and Waterways boundary and as such the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 2005 (SHFWA DCP 2005) applies to the subject site. The subject site is identified on the Ecological Communities and Landscape map, with a terrestrial ecological community of urban development with scattered trees. Section 3 of the Foreshores DCP refers to the landscape character types. The landscape character type for the subject site is type 8 and 9. Section 3.3 of the SHRWA DCP sets out how to identify the landscape character type that applies to the proposal, this stipulates that the development should “If the development site is on the border of more than one landscape character type, be considered in the context of the statement of character and intent and performance criteria for al relevant landscape character types”, furthermore the section refers to figure 3 which shows that a site located on one side of a bay is to be considered against the landscape character types of both sides of the bay. The SHFWA DCP 2005 states that the ‘character and intent’ of landscape character type 8 is:

”These areas have a high level of built form with waterside commercial, industrial and residential uses. The commercial and industrial uses play an important role in terms


Page 268

of tourism and maritime services which support water-based activities. There are special features in these areas that contribute to the visual character of the area that should be maintained.”

The SHFWA DCP 2005 states that the ‘character and intent’ of landscape character type 9 is:

“These areas are significant because they contain natural foreshores interspersed with more developed area and provide a key feature and visual variety to the total landscape. The natural shoreline has significant visual features. However it is also development with swimming pools, retained edges and boat sheds. Sections of vegetated skyline have been preserved. The intent is to retain these natural features and only encourage development that is consistent with the scale, design and siting of that which exists”.

The relevant performance criterion of Landscape Character type 8 requires development to satisfy the following criteria: Vegetation is integrated with land-based development to minimise the contrast between

natural and built elements; Design and mitigation measures are provided to minimise noise and amenity impact

dwelling incompatible land uses; Remaining natural features that are significant along the foreshore are preserved and

views of these features are maintained. The relevant performance criterion of landscape character type 9 requires development to satisfy the following criteria: It is sited so (to) ensure that the continuous line of any natural feature is preserved and

remains the dominant feature in the landscape; Colours should match native vegetation as closely as possible with trim colours drawn

from natural elements such as tree trunks and stone. The amended proposal, as outlined above is satisfactory. Accordingly the vegetation proposed in the landscape plan is an improvement on the existing situation and would sufficiently minimise the contrast between the natural and built elements. Section 4 of the Foreshores DCP refers to specific design criteria for water-based and land/water interface developments which are not applicable as the works proposed under this development application are entirely land based. Section 5 of the SHFWA DCP 2005 contains guidelines for land-based development. Applicable design guidelines are as follows: Built form The works proposed are required to comply with the relevant objectives and requirements, of section 5.4 of the Foreshores DCP. The assessment of the development application as initially submitted concluded that the proposal did not achieve the following key objectives / requirements: Where buildings would be of a contrasting scale or design to existing building, care will

be need to ensure that this contrast would enhance the setting;


Page 269

While no shapes are intrinsically unacceptable, rectangular boxy shapes with flat or skillion roofs usually do not harmonise with their surroundings. It is preferable to break up facades and roof likes into smaller element and to use pitched roof;

The proposal will improve the heritage listed façade of the dwelling. The proposal is considered a significant improvement on the existing dilapidated dwelling and will ensure a satisfactory visual amenity impact. 5.3.5 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy The proposal is adjacent to an identified significant rock face and retaining wall. The proposal works to the dwelling will not impact on the structure of the retaining wall. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

“Changes proposed for the application are in line with our previous discussion and would be acceptable subject to a full assessment. I would recommend removal of the large west facing roof window over the stair.”

Note: The window referred to in the comment from Council’s heritage advisor is existing. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 3 December 2009 and 18 December, 2009. No (0) submissions were received 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. The assessment has found that the proposed alterations and additions will have an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of surrounding development. The impact of this part of the proposal on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views is assessed as satisfactory subject to the conditions recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is OCP Architects. The owners are C and K Stokeld. The estimated value of works is $450,000.


Page 270

No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2009.351.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION



Survey ref No 8861 September 2008 Drummond Parmenter Pty Ltd

7009 9A_01 Issue 5 July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

7009 9A_02 Issue 5 July 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners



Statement of Heritage Impact

October 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners


October 2009 Otto Cserhalmi & Partners

Basix Certificate A70841 13 November 2009

Applicant






2. Two copies of architectural and Structural Engineer’s plans must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application. The structural engineering plans must be signed by a qualified practicing Structural Engineer with membership of the Institute


Page 271

of Engineers Australia or who is eligible to become a member and has appropriate experience and competence in the related field.



Amended Plans – External Blinds

3. The external blinds to the west facing attic windows are not approved and shall be deleted to protect the heritage façade, plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the construction certificate.




5. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 9A Musgrave Street and 6B Raglan Street which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



Retaining Walls


Sydney Water



Page 272






BASIX Certificate


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit








(iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before the building work commences, notified Council of his or her


Page 273

appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.






Home Building Act



that Act,









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


Page 274

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















Partial Demolition



Page 275

Asbestos Material










Site Work Hours









Page 276






Dust Control


Council Property



Drainage



33. To retain the architectural integrity of the building, existing bricks walls are not to be rendered and or painted over.




Page 277

Private Open Space Areas

35. Natural ground levels of private open space in the rear yard and side setbacks must not to be altered to ensure adjoining properties are not adversely affected in terms of stormwater runoff or privacy.




Tree Preservation




Weeds


BASIX Certificate

40. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated ***datBASIX***.

Lighting





Page 278

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans










Page 279









BASIX Certificate






PRIOR TO OCCUPATION






Page 280




ADVICE / NOTES















Page 281






Page 282

EP/68 22 Calypso Avenue

DA NUMBER: 8.2006.380.3

PROPOSAL: Modification of consent comprising variation to Condition 23 (Privacy)

REPORTING OFFICER: Ana Vissarion, Town Planner



LOCALITY MAP

1

DP

942

DP

982

555

20

37

1

PT

14 154

18

3

400 CB

A

1

DP

918

555DP

229

8

23 1 25D

P 1

1918

6

DP

918

992

710

89

21

33

3

36

2

21

17

2

4

16

1

BA

1

1

2

D P104530

DP 2298

DP 309355

A1

1

10

B

1

1 A

1

1

2

3

1

49 D

1010

9

SP

570

20

A

D

D P436621

D P530168

DP 656524

DP

318

119

34 35

B2

1

DP 2453

DP

245

3

D

P

5511

24D

P 9

8153

4

SP

102

47

3

1

D P504566

D P522939

SP 1722 D P455962

3029

1

DP 2453

DP 2453

D P436323

12

31

D

P

2279

98

21

DP

607

803

B22

38

32

2326

A

BA

DP 2453

D P 165282

2

28

DP

245

3

DP 322101

DP

381

265

D P386228

1 2

DP

165

860

3

DP 2453

DP

363

188

DP 1075426

SP

184

25

2

DP 2453

DP 166681

D P214008

1

2

86

B

1

14

DP 102302

DP 3332

P 927144

74614

DP 985041

2

1

DP 173762

DP 306377

DP 853633

SP 52633

SP 42325

0

702

12

68

24

1416

16A

16

19

23 2123

2024

16 14 12 10

22

25

18

37 35

35 33 3127

50

24 22 20 18

5254

3230

41

28 26

39

117

28

13

32

15

28A

11 9

26

21 1928

88

53

34109

111

113

115

6

8

3

1

4

23

7

6765

6971

73

5

6163

48

3638

4042

4446

34

42

44

4038

36

17

05

140

107

142

RAG

STS

TQUEEN

S

MAGIC CLA

NA

LPIN

E

CALYPSO

G

AVE

T

AVE


Page 283

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The S96 modification application seeks to exclude the window to bedroom 4 from the requirement in Condition 23 of Development Consent No 8.2006.380.1 to have obscure glass. One (1) submission was received raising concern in relation to privacy. The assessment finds the impact to be minor. The modification application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the northern side of Calypso Avenue, between Raglan Street and Clanalpine Street. The site is rectangular in shape and has a site frontage of 12.19m to Calypso Avenue. The site falls 5.07m towards Calypso Avenue at an average gradient of 14%. The site presently contains a 2 storey dwelling house on stone foundation walls and a small cellar underneath. A single carport is located within the front building line of the site. Surrounding development consists of dwelling houses of varying number of storeys. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND On 20 April 2007 DA 8.2006.380.1 was approved for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including an upper level addition and reconfiguration of the ground level. The Construction Certificate was issued on 20 March 2008 by a private certifier. Condition No 23 (Privacy) of Development Consent No.8.2006.380.1 states: 23. To ensure reasonable privacy for the adjoining properties, Bedrooms 2 and 4 and

upper floor bathroom windows shall have obscure glass to the minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level.

On 22 December 2009 the current Section 96 modification application was lodged.


Page 284

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The modification application seeks to amend Condition No 23 (Privacy) of Development Consent No. 8.2006.380.1 to delete the requirement for the provision of obscure glass to bedroom 4. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.1.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered with initial DA 8.2006.380.1 and this modification application remains consistent with these aims. 5.1.2 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a1) Residential under MLEP 1998. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) there were no previous approval bodies or concurrence authorities;


Page 285

(c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) the submission received has been addressed in the body of this report. Height and Floorspace Ratio There will be no change to approved height or existing floorspace as a result of the proposal. Landscaped Area The existing landscaped area does not change. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 requires consideration to be given to the objectives of the deemed SEPP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed modification will have no impact on the scenic reading of the land from the water. The matters for consideration in Clause (2) have been addressed in the consideration of the deemed Sydney SEPP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 above. Contaminated Sites and Excavation As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Moreover, the proposed works do not involve excavation. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. 5.1.3 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale Section 4.2 of MRDCP requires development to have a scale which is not excessive, to have adequate side setbacks for spatial relief between buildings and to be of a height and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development.


Page 286

The modification comprises the removal of the requirement to have obscure glass in the window to Bedroom 4. This will not alter the existing and approved siting and scale of the dwelling house. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed modification will not alter the streetscape of Calypso Avenue nor the building design and satisfies the objectives stated in Section 5.1 of MRDCP. Privacy The window to Bedroom 4 comprises a bay window to the east facing roof dormer. The outlook from this window is predominantly onto the roofs of the dwellings at No. 20 Calypso and No. 18 Calypso Avenue. The viewing angle is such that there is no overlooking into any of the habitable spaces of the two adjoining dwellings and no direct overlooking into their back yards. 18 Calypso Avenue has an upper-floor balcony to the north. The balcony is accessed from an attic style bedroom. It has a high wooden lattice privacy screen fixed on top of the western side balustrade and overlooks Clanalpine Street. There is a separation of 11.2m between the window to Bedroom 4 and the edge of the roof top balcony of No 18 Calypso Avenue. Taking into consideration the separation, room use and position of the window to bedroom 4, the proposed removal of the requirement for obscure glass to the bay window is assessed as reasonable. Overshadowing The proposed modification will not impact on solar access to windows or private open space areas of adjoining properties. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the objectives of Section 5.8 of the MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Raglan Sirius Bradleys townscape. The proposed modification does not alter the desired character of the area. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The modification application does not necessitate changes to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES There were no comments from other Council Departments or State Authorities. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 6 and 21 January 2010. One (1) submission was received on behalf of 18 Calypso Avenue. Matters raised in the submission and commentary on those matters are summarised below:


Page 287

Bedroom 4 window directly overlooks inside habitable spaces of 18 Calypso Avenue, including the upper bedroom;

Comment: There is no overlooking into habitable spaces of No. 18 Calypso Avenue, upper attic bedroom included. Amending Condition No. 23 (Privacy) of Development Consent No.8.2006.380.1 to

omit / delete provision of obscure glass to Bedroom 4 will allow direct overlooking into the back yards of both No. 20 and No. 18 Calypso Avenue;

Comment: This assessment has found that reasonable privacy is maintained to adjoining properties. 8.0 CONCLUSION This assessment has found that the modification of Condition 23 is reasonable. The proposed modification will result in a satisfactory development having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 96(2) and 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. Approval is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Ruby Banerjee and Michael Swanson. The owners are Mr M J Swanson & Dr R Banerjee. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2006.380.3 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Amending condition No. 23 to read as follows: 23. To ensure reasonable privacy for the adjoining properties, Bedroom 2 and upper floor

bathroom windows shall have obscure glass to a minimum height of 1.6m above the finished floor level.



Page 288

EP/69 131-135 Avenue Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2010.16.1

PROPOSAL: Boundary adjustment


LODGEMENT DATE: 25 January 2010 (Downtime 0 days)


LOCALITY MAP

DP

232801

3

A

B

B D P

329144

D

SP 705

SP

20663

SP2

SP

30177

3220

D 44 2

1

D P

516380

DP 539812

SP 1065

SP 183SP 18668

11

6

1

2

512

1 D P

516417

DP 62708

D P

806116

2

72

SP

14447

SP

32383

SP 4374

1

7A

C

DP

2117

D P

444898

DP 534827

DP 974982

0

A

C

CB

11DP 103293

DP

105057

DP

933907

P 948051D

P 956960

DP

958091

B

DP 654673

D P

103292

DP 113948

DP 177207

DP 308726

DP 337398D

P 69116

DP 71488

DP 72267

DP 744135

DP 957364

DP 852999

DP 976613 17 P98

B

101

2D

P 2473

DP

346287

46778

D

11

B

D P

235284

DP

2473

D P

521952

1

DP

133568D

P

440877

D P

443247

DP

798679D

P 657093

SP 39861

SPS

P 75000

SP

14272

SP

381

1

1

7

18A

5

B2

SP 20550A

11

BA

91

B

A

A1

8

SP

31737

92

14

151

0

113

157159

126

128-

130

161

6A

103105

107

109111

116118 120-124

101

122

91

93

95

9799124

116

112114

118120

89

88

109111

113115

110

7

180

178

114

139

110112

127 129

131133

135

102104106 108

94

125

117119 123

90 9296

9898A

100

9

13

57

11

ST

E

LN

HAM

LET

KE

HE

RS

T

KEMBLE

AVENUE ROAD

SHADFORTH


Page 289

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for boundary adjustment between three allotments. The development approved as part of development consent 8.2008.145.1 for construction of three dwelling houses and the conversion of the shops into a studio for each of the dwelling houses is nearing completion on the site. The applicant is seeking this boundary adjustment to allow for the boundaries between the retained structures and new built structures to follow through in a parallel line. The allotments do not comply with the minimum lot size development standard. The area of the allotments following the boundary adjustment varies only slightly from the areas of the existing allotments. The application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the southern side of Avenue Road, between Shadforth Street and Nock Lane. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 12.2 metres to Avenue Road and 12.5 metres to Shadforth Street. The site falls 1.4 metres toward Avenue Road at an average gradient of 3%. The site comprises three allotments known as Lot A, Lot B and Lot C in DP 444898, Nos.131, 133 and 135 Avenue Road. The site has a combined area of 481.6m2. The site is identified as an item of local heritage significance in Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. The statement of significance for the group of shops indicates:

“This little group of shops is a single storey construction with brick flanking walls that extend up as parapets dividing the tenancies. Because of the gradient of Avenue Road they are built at three different levels and the front parapet above the more recent footpath awning is stepped. The roofs are unglazed, orange terracotta tiles with crenellated ridges. The shop fronts are in very original condition and have timber frames, low sills, splayed side ingos with encuastic floor tiles and slate thresholds, and top hampers divided into small coloured glass panes.”

The works approved as part of development consent 8.2008.145.1 are nearing completion on the site. Surrounding development consists of mainly dwelling houses of one and two storeys in Avenue Road and Shadforth Street, the exception being the nine storey residential flat building adjoining the site on its eastern boundary. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities Yes* Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

*This application does not give rise to this policy.


Page 290

2.0 BACKGROUND On 16 July 2008 development consent 8.2008.145.1 was granted for partial demolition, construction of three dwelling houses, three carports, landscaping and the conversion of the shops into a studio for each of the dwelling houses. The works approved as part of this application are nearing completion on the site. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of a boundary adjustment between 131, 133 and 135 Avenue Road. The applicant has advised that the boundary adjustment is necessary to allow for the boundaries between the retained structures and new built structures to follow through in a parallel line. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL EXISTING PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning

2(d) Residential

Minimum Lot Size

131 Avenue Road 300m2 162m2 165.6m2 (-55.2%) No (SEPP 1)

133 Avenue Road 300m2 158.5m2 156.7m2(-52.2%) No (SEPP 1)

135 Avenue Road 300m2 161.2m2 159.4m2(-53.1%) No (SEPP 1)

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) has been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998):


Page 291

Clause 12(2) Minimum Lot Size Clause 12(2) of MLEP 1998 prescribes a minimum lot size of 300 square metres for the erection of a dwelling house on land zoned residential 2(d). The proposed boundary adjustment results in allotment sizes that do not comply with the minimum lot size (refer to numeric controls summary table). The objectives for the minimum lot size standard are listed under Clause 12(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives. (a) to retain the pattern of subdivision in residential areas while allowing infill

development of smaller lots in some localities, The proposal involves a minor reconfiguration of the dimensions and areas of

the existing three allotments and will not result in any change to the existing pattern of subdivision.

(b) to ensure lots have a minimum size which would be sufficient to provide useable area

for building and landscaping, The proposal involves a minor reconfiguration of the dimensions and areas of

the existing three allotments. The lots are sufficient to provide a useable area for building and landscaping.

(c) to require larger lots along the foreshore or where the topography of the other natural

features of a site limit its subdivision potential, The site does not adjoin the foreshore and there are no natural features that

are a constraint on the site. (d) to provide small lot subdivision in some zones as an alternative to redevelopment for

the purposes of multiple dwellings to ensure the retention of the existing dwelling stock and the amenity of the area

The proposal involves a minor reconfiguration of the dimensions and areas of

the existing three allotments and will not reduce dwelling house stock or the amenity of the area.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to the development standard satisfies the objectives of the standard and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standard is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objection is well founded and is consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy.


Page 292

5.2.2 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for shops and residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(d) Residential. The proposed boundary adjustment is ancillary to the use of each of the allotments for a dwelling house and is permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Minimum Lot Size The existing allotments do not comply with the 300 square metre minimum lot size requirement for the erection of a dwelling house in the residential 2(d) zone. The proposed boundary adjustment involves a minor change to the area of each of the allotments as it seeks to provide for parallel lot lines following the new works that have been undertaken. The reconfigured allotments also do not comply with the 300 square metre minimum lot size requirement for the erection of a dwelling house in the residential 2(d) zone The proposed boundary adjustment meets the objectives of the minimum lot size development standard outlined at Clause 12(1) of MLEP 1998. Refer to Section 5.2.1 of this report for assessment of the SEPP 1 objection. Height, Floor Space Ratio and Landscaped Area No change is proposed to the approved built form. Any change to the approved floorspace ratio and landscaped area resulting from the proposed new site areas will be negligible. There will be no impacts on the streetscape or adjoining properties.


Page 293

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 indicates that Council must not consent to the erection of a building on land in the foreshore scenic protection area unless an assessment has been made having regard to the objectives of the Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. As no change is proposed to the approved built form the proposed boundary adjustment will in no way impact on the visual dominance when viewed from the waterway. Heritage The site contains an item identified as being of local heritage significance in Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998. Additionally, half the site is located within the Shadforth Street Conservation Area (that half fronting Shadforth Street). Clause 32 and 33 of MLEP 1998 are relevant to the proposal with regard to heritage conservation. The Heritage Impact Statement submitted with the development application has been taken into consideration as part of this assessment. Te advice of Council’s Heritage Advisor was sought as part of development application 8.2008.145.1, where it was advised that the proposed development will conserve the aesthetic value of the shops in the streetscape of Avenue Road for which they are listed, and that there is minimal and acceptable impact from Shadforth Street to the rear. The proposed boundary adjustment will also have a reasonable impact on the significance of the heritage item and its siting within the heritage conservation area. The proposed development is consistent with the heritage conservation objectives outlined at Clause 32(1) of MLEP 1998. Vicinity of Heritage The site is within the vicinity of several heritage items: No.139 Avenue Road – Casablanca flats; No.107 Shadforth Street – Hamlet House; No.99-101 Shadforth Street – pair of semi-detached dwellings; No.119-121 Avenue Road – pair of shops with dwelling above; and No.117 Avenue Road - late Victorian Cottage. Clause 37 of MLEP 1998 requires that when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider: (a) the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance, curtilage and

setting of the item, and (b) the impact of the proposed development on any significant view to or from the heritage

item. The proposed development will have no impact when the above are considered. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places.


Page 294

Original Estate Roads Both Avenue Road and Shadforth Street are identified as Original Estate Roads in Schedule 4 of MLEP 1998. Clause 36 of MLEP 1998 is not relevant to the proposed development as the realignment of these roads is not proposed. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house (one on each of the three allotments) and would be permissible with consent pursuant to Draft MLEP 2008. The site is a heritage item and is partially within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Subdivision The existing and proposed allotment sizes do not comply with the minimum requirement. As no change is proposed to the approved built form there will be no impacts on the streetscape, adjoining properties or natural site features. The orientation of the allotments is not proposed to be altered and servicing of the site will not be affected. Siting, Scale and Streetscape As no change is proposed to the approved built form there will be no impacts on the streetscape or adjoining properties. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Belmont townscape. The proposed boundary adjustment is not inconsistent with the desired future character objectives. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposed boundary adjustment does not require the provision of additional parking on the site. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections


Page 295

and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection to the boundary adjustment. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The Manager of Development Services determined that notification of the application was not necessary pursuant to Clause 12.2 of Council's Notification DCP. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant policies. This assessment has found that the proposed boundary adjustment will have a reasonable impact on the heritage significance of the site, the streetscape and adjoining properties and is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant and owner is Constructrite Pty Limited. The estimated value of works is nil. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the minimum lot size development within Clause 13(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the


and (d) Requiring compliance with the standard would unreasonably constrain the




Page 296




Sheet 1 of 1 17 December 2009

CitiSurv Pty Ltd



Statement of Environmental Effects and Statement of Heritage Impact

Undated Constructrite P/L



Subdivision

2. A Subdivision Certificate under Section 109C(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 must be obtained prior to the registration of plans under the Conveyancing Act 1919. All conditions of the development consent must be completed prior to the issue of the Subdivision Certificate.

Sydney Water



The Section 73 certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.

A copy of any Trade Waste Agreement required by Sydney Water shall be submitted by Council prior to the release of the Subdivision Certificate.


Page 297

ADVICE / NOTES

















Page 298

EP/70 11 Spencer Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2008.322.2

PROPOSAL: Modification of a consent comprising changes to openings, increase in height, master bedroom extension, air conditioning units and changes to landscaping.




LOCALITY MAP

DP

174

590

DP

455

949

DP

111

694

9

2

2

BA

3

CB

11

1

1

2

DP

170

249

DP

170

730

DP

301

933

D P444791

DP 577455DP 983524

DP 933642

A1

DP

307

357

DP

415518

D P444977

DP 509476

9

DP 980380

B1

1A

11

11

1D

P 9

257

55

DP

937

402

11

1

1

1DP 926572

DP

982

660

18

DP 3272

1

151

2A

B

D P308865

D P515791

DP

924

437

1

1

1

1DP 902652

DP

924

438

DP 924439

DP 724500

54

5556

1

57

53B

DP

929

030

DP 954035

BA

D

P

4376

74

DP

445

204

DP

811

906

2

D P304328D

P36

7924

D

P

4429

86

A

10

ABYX11

46B 2

121B

DP

590

510

DP

390

91

DP

590

510

DP

811

906

646263

65

DP

983

955

2

1516

17

13 141221

1

DP 974720

DP 327221

DP

100

215

D

P

3040

78 D P

336502

B

DP

327

2

58BA6

4

D

1061

9

32

D

P

8662

52

9

DP

125

667

D

P

4446

88

DP 711986

DP 3272

1 272

45

A49484746

44

DP 3909

1

71BA

D

P

3075

29

DP 924731

DP 3909

1

D

P10

4400

7

39

A1424140

666768697071DP 3909

543

DP 3272

A

DP 926737

1112

DP

901

688

43421

1

2333 31 29 27

810

2

2

19

11

1113

1517

21

7 53

1

20

1214

1618

1

35

26

5 3 1

2224

31 29 27 25 23 21 32 30

4

14 1210

86

2

19 17 151113

9

17 15 13 1

10

10

2218 16 14 12

8 6 4 2

9

21 19 1713 11

7

18

6 24 22 20 18A16

24

32 30 28 26

23

A 31 29 27 25

3537

33

191A 21

15

20A 2022A

WOLG

OW

LES

RD

RD

CABRAMATTA

PENCER ROAD

EN


Page 299

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is for a modification of consent comprising changes to openings, increase in height, master bedroom extension, air conditioning units and changes to landscaping. The proposal complies with the relevant height standards. The proposal increases the previously approved departure from the floorspace ratio standard and the minimum landscaped area requirement. The changes to the overall height and the master bedroom extension seek to reverse design changes requested by Council staff within the original proposal. The intent of these design changes was to minimise the bulk and scale of the first floor addition. The applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to why an increase in height or floorspace is warranted and more specifically how the modifications minimise bulk and scale. It is recommended that no increase in floor area or height at the upper level be approved. The remaining sought changes do not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbour amenity and are acceptable.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the northern side of Spencer Road, between Cowles Road and Bardwell Lane. The site is generally rectangular in shape with the exception of an area of 22.6m2 that extends behind No.13 Spencer Road. The site has a 9.755m frontage to Spencer Road and falls 1.5m from the rear to the front at an average gradient of 3.7%. The site presently contains a single storey detached dwelling. Surrounding development consists of single and two storey detached and semi detached dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes* Wetlands No

*No impact. 2.0 BACKGROUND Development Application 8.2008.322.1 was approved on 17 March 2009 subject to conditions. On 2 March in relation to the subject modification application Council requested elevational shadow diagrams. The response was received on 3 March 2010.


Page 300

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Changes to openings including revised window to dining room revised windows to

bedroom 2 and 3, new French doors to courtyard and changes to east facing first floor windows as required by condition 4 of the original consent;

New retractable awning over rear deck; Changes to landscaping including wheel tracks for car space and changes to the planter

bed adjacent to the rear deck to comply with conditions 5 and 3 of the original consent; New air conditioning unit adjacent to the eastern boundary; Ridge of extension increased by 300mm with an associated increase in height of gutter

line; and First floor master bedroom extension to the east with associated changes to roofing. First floor master bedroom level, increased rear setback of 1m to the south to comply

with condition 2 of the original consent. The prescribed amendments on the plans have satisfactorily addressed Council requirements in relation to conditions 2, 3 and 4 of the original consent. Consequently it is recommended that these conditions be deleted. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96(2) and Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006


Page 301


Zoning: 2(a3) Residential

Site Area 450m2 428.9m2 (no change) N/A

Building Height 8.5m 7.7m (no change) Yes

Wall Height 7.2m 6.3m (no change) Yes


Gross Floor Area

Approved 259m2 N/A

Proposed 262.4m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.5 : 1 0.612: (+ 22.4%) No

Landscaped Area 157.44m2 132.8m2 No


Setbacks

Ground floor – East

Ground floor – West

First floor – East

First floor – West

0.9m

0.9m

1.5m

1.5m

0.215m (no change)

0.285m (no change)

2.1m

3.1m (no change)

No (existing)

No (existing)

Yes

Yes



Satisfactory Yes


Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes


Catchment) 2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims.


Page 302

5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(a3) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. Subject to recommended conditions the development satisfies zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96(2) of the Act, it being noted that: (a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was

originally granted; (b) there were no previous approval bodies or concurrence authorities; (c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP; and (d) two (2) submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report. Height The proposed modifications involve an increase in height of the first floor addition by 300mm and an associated increase in the gutter line. Council in its correspondence to the applicant on 3 December 2008, specifically requested a lowering of the gutter level of the extension to the ground floor rear and the associated lowering of the overall height of the addition. The intent of the requested design change was to reduce overshadowing and overall bulk. The applicant seeks to reverse the required changes by increasing the height of the additions to match the height of the main ridge line, with an associated increase in gutter line of the ground floor addition to the south of the family room. The increase in height is assessed as inconsistent with Objective 13(1)(d) of MLEP 1998 in that the additional height does not minimise bulk and scale. The height of the building was originally required to be reduced and the applicant has not provided sufficient justification as to why an increase in height is warranted. Consequently it is recommended that no increase in height be approved.


Page 303

Floorspace Ratio The proposed modifications to gross floor area involve an extension of the first floor master bedroom to the east. Council in its correspondence to the applicant on 3 December 2008 specifically requested that the roof treatment over the proposed kitchen and east of the master bedroom level contain a skillion roof. The intent of this requested design change was to minimise the bulk and scale of the addition as viewed from 9 Spencer Road. In addition to the above the original approval included a condition which increased the rear setback of the first floor addition of 1m to the south. The intent of this condition was also to reduce the perceived bulk of the dwelling. The proposed eastern extension of the master bedroom level is assessed as inconsistent with the objective within Clause14(c) of MLEP 1998, which is to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of new development. The bulk and scale of the addition is exacerbated by the proposed increase in building height. The additional bulk created by the eastern extension of the master bedroom level is not supported in this context. It is recommended that no increase in floor area at the upper level be approved. Landscaped Area The proposed changes to landscaping involve a planter bed adjacent to the rear deck and revised wheel tracks for the proposed hard stand space within the frontage. These changes are in response to original conditions of consent and are acceptable. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed development will not be readily visible from either the waterway or foreshore, as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and the vegetation and development that exists between the site and the waterway. Excavation The proposed modifications do not involve a material increase in excavation. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item. The site is located within the Holt Estate Conservation Area and is located adjacent to Spencer Road which contains heritage items of local significance as stated in Schedule 2 of MLEP 1998. The applicable heritage items are the street trees of Spencer Road. The modifications are located almost entirely to the rear and will not impact on the heritage character of the Conservation Area of Spencer Road. The required wheel tracks within the frontage reduce adverse streetscape impacts by reducing paving within the front setback. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009.


Page 304

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item however is within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The approved ground floor setbacks and the first floor rear and western setback does not change with the sought modifications. The extension of the first floor master bedroom brings the eastern extent of the addition 700mm closer to the property boundary. This additional bulk is assessed as inconsistent with Clause 14(1)(c) of MLEP 1998 and is not supported. Views The modifications will not give rise to adverse impacts upon views to, from or across the site. Streetscape and Building Design The approved streetscape appearance of the dwelling is not altered and consequently the proposal will not materially impact the streetscape. The proposed retractable awning over the rear decking does not cause significant additional impacts on neighbouring amenity. Privacy The proposed changes to openings will not give rise to adverse overlooking impacts. Council's usual condition in relation to air conditioning units is included within the recommendation. Overshadowing The proposal remains satisfactory with regard to Council's minimum solar access requirements. The recommendation includes conditions which do not alter the bulk and scale at the upper level negating any objections in relation to additional overshadowing. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Belmont townscape. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape.


Page 305

5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal maintains the approved car space, ensuring compliance with MTDCP. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Nil. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 9 December 2009 and 24 December 2009. Two (2) submissions were received from behalf of the following properties: 2 Cabramatta Road; and 9 Spencer Road. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: 2 Cabramatta Road remain concerned with regard to the privacy impacts as a result

of the first floor addition, and this reiterated with the applicants increasing the height of the addition;

Comment: The privacy impacts from the first floor addition to 2 Cabramatta Road were assessed as reasonable in the original assessment. The proposed modifications do not involve any material change to the approved first floor north facing window. This window is located approximately 14m from the common boundary providing adequate separation in accordance with Council guidelines. Objection to the increase in ridge height of 300mm; Comment: Please refer to the assessment pertaining to height contained within Section 5.2.4 of this report. Objection to the revised roof treatment over kitchen and associated increase in bulk; Comment: Please refer to the assessment pertaining to floorspace ratio contained within Section 5.2.4 of this report.


Page 306

8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant planning guidelines and policies and are recommended for approval subject to conditions which maintain the previously approved bulk and scale. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Nicole Janes. The owners are Aaron Daniel Simcock and Nicole Suzanne Janes. The estimated value of works is $655,200.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Modification of Consent Application No. 8.2008.322.1 be approved pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following:

A1. Deletion of condition Nos. 2, 3 and 4. A2. Amending condition No. 1 to read as follows:




Survey

Issue A - Reference 27321

12 September 2008

Norton Survey Partners

A1.04B- A1.07B December 2008 Giles Tribe Architects- Architects and Urban Planners




August 2008 Giles Tribe Architects- Architects and Urban Planners


12 December 2008

Giles Tribe Architects- Architects and Urban Planners

Statement of Heritage Impact

August 2008 Giles Tribe Architects- Architects and Urban Planners


Page 307


Prepared by

BASIX Certificate 3 September 2008

New South Wales Government Department of Planning

Waste Management Plan 3 September 2008


as amended shown in colour and bubble only (8.2008. 322.2)


A1.04C – A1.07C (inclusive)

November 2009 Giles Tribe Architects- Architects and Urban Planners




26 November 2009


BASIX Certificate 30 November 2009

Applicant

A3. Addition of the following conditions:

1A. To reduce bulk and scale this approval does not relate to the changes C-Item 5 and

C-Item 6 (bubbled, coloured and as nominated on the plans). No increase in height or floor area is approved. The Construction Certificate plans shall exclude these changes from the plans.

Air Conditioning Units

60A. To control noise impacts for adjoining properties, the air conditioning unit shall be installed and operated so as not to adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties. Applicants may have regard to Council’s complying development controls for air conditioning units under the Mosman Exempt and Complying Development DCP or State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.



Page 308

EP/71 SEPP 1 Variations

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services, Angelo Falato SUMMARY Report in accordance with Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 - Reporting Variations to Development Standards. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends: That the report be received and noted. REPORT In accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 all applications determined where there has been a variation in development standards under SEPP No. 1 are listed in the attached table. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Variations in development standards: 1 March - 31 March 2010


Page 309

EP/72 Development Applications

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services, Angelo Falato SUMMARY Development Applications that have been received and dealt with by Council's Director Environment and Planning under the provisions of Section 378 (Delegated Authority) of the Local Government Act 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends: That the report be received. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

No Address/Description DA No. Applicant

1. 7A Kirkoswald Avenue Change from single to double garage with above roof terrace, internal reconfigurations, rear addition, roof extension, new terrace, pergola and landscaping

8.2009.221.1 Mr A Apostolellis

2. 40 Gouldsbury Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising new double carport, covered rear deck with the basement below and landscaping

8.2009.230.1 Paul Scrivener Landscape Architects Pty Ltd

3. 102 Awaba Street Addition of a new carport to an existing dwelling house

8.2009.253.1 Clontarf Building Design & Construction

4. 49 Upper Avenue Road (Refusal) Hardstand parking, garbage bin enclosures, stair and three (3) rainwater tanks to an existing multiple dwelling

8.2009.259.1 Richmond and Ross Pty Ltd

5. 41 Heydon Street Partial demolition of fence, construction of new driveway and hard stand parking

8.2009.268.1 Mr L & Mrs E Brooks


Page 310


6. 25 Rickard Avenue Alterations and additions to a dwelling house comprising new retaining walls and levelling of back yard and new swimming pool fencing

8.2009.289.1 Mr JM & Mrs EE Ganley

7. 50 Ourimbah Road (Refusal) Construction of a new car-parking space forward to the semi-detached dwelling house

8.2009.303.1 Mr B & Mrs E Birchmeier

8. 29B Parriwi Road Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising relocation of the swimming pool, changes to windows, internal modifications and landscaping works

8.2009.313.1 Mrs D Lane

9. 11A Warringah Road New shade structure and fireplaces to an existing dwelling house

8.2009.319.1 Design Studio Group Pty Ltd

10. 100 Belmont Road Construction of a new swimming pool in the rear yard of a dwelling house

8.2009.328.1 Mr S J & Mrs A Larkins

11. 770 Military Road (Refusal) Demolition of existing building and construction of a mixed use development containing two shops and six residential units and basement parking for ten vehicles

8.2009.332.1 Robert Ferguson Architects

12. 21 Avenue Road Installation of inclinator at front of dwelling house

8.2009.339.1 Mr Jon Crothers

13. 17 Botanic Road New vehicle crossover & driveway, change of use of existing garage to storage, reinstatement of kerb, new front fence and landscaping

8.2009.341.1 Mrs C A Freeman


Page 311


14. 24 Bray Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising internal changes, reinstatement of original front verandah, rear addition, carport, new front changes, reinstatement of original front verandah, rear addition, carport, new front fence with gate, and landscape works

8.2009.344.1 Mr Gregory Carmichael

15. 97 Spencer Road Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising ground floor rear extension, new first floor addition and a new front fence

8.2009.345.1 Ms D Simonds & Mr P Clements

16. 11 Burrawong Avenue Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising kitchen extension and new glass roof pergola

8.2009.347.1 Mr A Bootes

17. 11 Little Street New gate and driveway, partial front fence and utilities works to a dwelling house

8.2009.356.1 Mrs A Linton

18. 123 Middle Head Road Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising internal changes, new dormer and patio

8.2009.360.1 Professor S J Nicholas

19. 1 Bradleys Head Road Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising replacement of single garage with double garage, ground floor refurbishment and rear extension plus pool, first floor rear verandah and bedroom additions and new attic level bedroom suite

8.2009.366.1 Mr A W & Mrs C A Young

20. 116 Awaba Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including a new first floor addition, double (tandem) carport, landscaping and swimming pool

8.2009.368.1 MacCormick Simonian Architects


Page 312


21. 22A Inkerman Street alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising ground floor additions, an elevated deck, changes to roof, new openings, landscaping, vergola and swimming pool

8.2009.389.1 Mr A & Mrs P McKay

22. 6 Melrose Street (Refusal) Alterations and additions to a semi-detached dwelling house including re-configuration and extension to the rear of the ground floor, new first floor and carport to the front

8.2010.2.1 Mode Projects

23. 4 Mulbring Street Alterations and additions to the face of a dwelling house including changes to the front balcony and a new roof over new entry area

8.2010.20.1 Look Interior Design

24. 8/8 Muston Street Internal modification to a dwelling comprising demolition of kitchen wall in a residential flat building

8.2010.36.1 Mr R Legeay

25. 105 Avenue Road Demolition and replacement of front stairs to a multiple dwelling

8.2010.68.1 Dr G Peel


Page 313

EP/73 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02

REPORT BY: Angelo Falato, Manager Development Services SUMMARY To update Council on litigation costs and the distribution of work to Council’s legal panel for development application related matters. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. REPORT The purpose of this report is to keep Council up to date with development application related litigation costs incurred for the financial year and to inform Council which legal firm has been allocated work. The report also provides a brief synopsis on the outcome of litigation matters. Costs include fees for Council’s solicitors and any expert witnesses engaged but do not account for time spent by Council staff either engaged in defending the appeal or in undertaking administrative tasks associated with the carriage of the appeal. In some cases, work has been carried out but Council has not yet been billed or not billed to the full extent. 2008-2009 Budget Summary

Budget allocation 2009-2010 $180,000.00

Costs incurred up to 31 March 2010 $116,445.43

Projected Budget Surplus $24,739.43


Page 314

Costs Trend

COSTS TRENDS WITH 2009-2010 FIGURE

$0.00$50,000.00

$100,000.00$150,000.00$200,000.00$250,000.00$300,000.00$350,000.00$400,000.00

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

COSTS AS AT THIS MONTH IN PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Report - Council Meeting - 20 April 2010

Page 315

Pikes Lawyers

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 07-08 & 08-09 Appeal Costs

($)

09-10 AppealCosts ($)

Note

91 Ourimbah Road

13.2006.52.1 Garage built without approval

Order to demolish Order issued

Contempt proceedings heard & judgement handed down 23 February 2010, costs assessment on foot, bankruptcy proceedings on foot

72,334.81 27,714.99 1

868 Military Road

8.2009.376.1 Alts & adds to commercial building

Approval Pending Discontinued 10 March 2010 - -

16 Hunter Road

8.2009.383.1 Alts & adds to dwelling house

Pending Pending Callover 5 May 2010 - - -

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 31 MARCH 2010 $53,342.23

Report - Council Meeting - 20 April 2010

Page 316

HWL Ebsworth

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 07-08 & 08-09 Appeal Costs

($)

09-10 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

244 Raglan Street

8.2006.417.4

Modification of consent, subdivision & two new dwelling houses

Refusal - Section 34 Conference 10 March 2010 - 14,097.00

8 Raglan Street

8.2009.322.1 Multiple dwelling

Refusal - Hearing 10 June 2010 - 4,617.10

21A Redan Street

9.2006.249.1 New dwelling house

Order to comply with consent

- Class 4 proceedings commenced 4 March 2010

- 19,348.10

8 Kahibah Road

9.2003.288.1

Alterations and additions to dwelling house

Order to comply with consent

Order issued Referred for regulatory compliance - 661.00

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 31 MARCH 2010 $63,103.20

Notes: 1. Applicant ordered to pay Council's costs as agreed or assessed.

mosman council ordinary meeting agenda - 20 april 2010 · report to ordinary meeting of council –...

Documents