agenda: application assessment panel

Agenda: Application Assessment Panel

Date: Tuesday 28 June 2005

Time: 3.00pm

Part: One of One Part

\\FS1\VOL1\COMMON\Application Assessment Panel\AGENDAS\2005\june28-05aapage.doc

Outline Of Meeting Protocol & Procedure:

• The Chairperson will call the Meeting to order and ask the Committee/Staff to presentapologies or late correspondence.

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

• At the beginning of each item the Chairperson will ask whether a member(s) of thepublic wish to address the Committee.

• If person(s) wish to address the Committee, they are allowed three (3) minutes in whichto do so. Please direct comments to the issues at hand.

• If there are persons representing both sides of a matter (eg applicant/objector), theobjector speaks first.

• At the conclusion of the allotted three (3) minutes, the speaker resumes his/her seat andtakes no further part in the debate unless specifically called to do so by the Chairperson.

• If there is more than one (1) person wishing to address the Committee from the sameside of the debate, the Chairperson will request that where possible a spokesperson benominated to represent the parties.

• The Chairperson has the discretion whether to continue to accept speakers from thefloor.

• After considering any submissions the Committee will debate the matter (if necessary),and arrive at a resolution.

Note:Matters where there is a substantive change to the recommendation of the CouncilOfficer are referred to the next appropriate meeting of the Application AssessmentPanel.

Note:Matters can be “called” from this Committee to the Development Control Committee(DCC) by Councillors subject to the following requirements:

- Calling requires two Councillors- Calling must be lodged before 3.00pm on the business day preceding the Application

Assessment Panel meeting at which the item is listed.


WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting

21 June 2005

To: General ManagerDirector – Technical ServicesDirector – Planning & DevelopmentManager – ComplianceManager – Strategic Planning

CC: The MayorAll Councillors

Application Assessment Panel Meeting – 28 June 2005

In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, I request yourattendance at a Meeting of the Council’s Application Assessment Panel to be held in theCommittee Room, 536 New South Head Road, Double Bay, on Tuesday 28 June 2005 at3.00pm.

Gary JamesGeneral Manager

Woollahra Municipal CouncilApplication Assessment Panel 28 June 2005


Meeting AgendaPart One of One Part

Item Subject Pages123

ApologiesLate CorrespondenceDeclarations of Interest

Items to be Decided by this Committee using its Delegated Authority

D1 Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 21 June 2005 1

D2 DA 474/2003/2 – 15A and 15B Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay – Section96 Application - Internal and external modifications - 15/10/2004*See Recommendation Page 17

2-25


\\FS1\VOL1\COMMON\Application Assessment Panel\AGENDAS\2005\june28-05aapage.doc 1

Item No: D1 Delegated to CommitteeSubject: Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 21 June 2005Author: Les Windle, Manager - GovernanceFile No: See Application Assessment Panel MinutesReason for Report: The Minutes of the Meeting of Tuesday 21 June 2005 were

previously circulated. In accordance with the guidelines forCommittees’ operations it is now necessary that those Minutes beformally taken as read and confirmed.

Recommendation:

That the Minutes of the Application Assessment Panel Meeting of 21 June 2005 be taken asread and confirmed.

Les WindleManager - Governance



SECTION 96 APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

ITEM No. D2

FILE No. DA 474/2003/2

ADDRESS: 15A and 15B Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

EXISTING CONSENT: Alterations and additions to a residential flat building

TYPE OF CONSENT: Integrated development

DATE OF CONSENT: 2 October 2003

ZONING: Residential 2(a)

PROPOSEDMODIFICATIONS:

Internal and external modifications

DATE S96 LODGED: 15/10/2004

CONSENT AUTHORITY: Council

APPLICANT: Evanel Pty Ltd

OWNER: Strata Plan 02744 & Strata Plan 09053

AUTHOR: Mr D Booth

LOCALITY PLAN

SubjectSite

Objectors

North

Locality Plan



1. SUMMARY

Reason for report

Objectors’ concerns cannot be resolved through the modification of conditions of the existingdevelopment consent or through the imposition of additional conditions. Accordingly, thesubject Section 96 application is referred to Council's Application Assessment Panel fordetermination.

Issues

• objectors’ concerns• existing use rights• failure of original determination to include a condition of consent addressing the terms of

approval expressed by the Approval Body Waterways• floor space ratio non-compliance• northern boundary setback non-compliance• 12 m foreshore building line non-compliance• number of storeys non-compliance

Objections

Nine

Recommendation

The proposed modifications to the development consent are recommended for approvalbecause:

• they are considered to be satisfactory with regard to the relevant provisions under Section96 and Section of 79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

• the consent, as proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same as thatoriginally granted

• they will not adversely affect the amenity of the public domain or adjoining propertiessuch that refusal is justified

2. DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED DEVELOPMENT

The approved development involves alterations and additions to an existing residential flatbuilding consisting of 2 units. The approved alterations and additions include a second flooraddition to the northern side of the existing building.

3. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

The proposed modifications are as follows:

• the addition of a gate to the southern corner of the site at ground floor level• internal alterations at ground and second floor levels• alterations to the Unit 2 entry involving an increase in gross floor area of approximately

2.2 m²• the increasing of the height of the second floor addition by 300 mm



• the northern and western extension of the second floor addition increasing the gross floorarea by approximately 28.5 m², facilitating a amily room and an extension to thebathroom/servery

• the introduction of 600 mm eaves to the second floor level• the addition of a barbecue at second floor level• the installation of a low-profile skylight over the bathroom at second floor level

4. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is located at the northern end of Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay. The subject siteis irregularly shaped having a western frontage to Rose Bay 30.6 m in length, a staggeredsouthern boundary to the terminal point of Dumaresq Road 20.3 m in length, a staggeredeastern boundary 22.5 m in length and a northern boundary 43.1 m in length. The site area is579.5 m².

The site is currently occupied by a flat roofed, two-storey residential flat building consistingof two units. A swimming pool and landscaped area exists forward of the western boundaryland which is leased from NSW Maritime.

Adjoining development to the east consists of a single storey dwelling-house (No 15Dumaresq Road). Adjoining development to the south-east (No 13 Dumaresq Road) consistsof a three storey residential flat building. Adjoining the site to the south is DumaresqReserve.

5. PROPERTY HISTORY

The existing residential flat building on the site was approved by on 27 February 1962. Stratasubdivision of the residential flat building was approved on 5 April 1967.

6. REFERRALS

6.1 Comments from external approval bodies

The original development application involved excavation within a distance of 40 m from themean high water mark of Sydney Harbour and, accordingly, was referred to Waterways asintegrated development. Waterways advised Council on 7 August 2003, that a permit underPart 3A of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948 would not be required, subjectto specific environmental controls. However, the recommended environmental controls werenot included as a condition of development consent.

It is recommended that a condition of development consent be added in order to rectify thisissue (see Condition No 48). This condition will adequately address the minor additionalexcavation associated with the additional footings resulting from the proposed modificationsat ground floor level.

6.2 Comments from internal officers

Not required.



ASSESSMENT UNDER S96

7.1 S96 (1) Correction of minor error, misdescription or miscalculation

Not applicable.

7.2 S96 (1A) Modification involving minimal environmental impact

Potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the proposed modifications arelimited to minor view loss and visual impacts upon adjoining properties and negligible visualimpact upon the public domain. These environmental impacts are considered to be minimalas discussed below under the relevant headings of consideration. Accordingly, the subjectSection 96 Application is deemed to fall within this category.

7.3 S96 (2) Other modifications

Not applicable.

7.4 S96AA Modification of a consent granted by the Court

Not applicable.

7.5 Substantially the same development

The proposed modifications to the development consent are the first. Despite the substantialextension of the second floor level, the development consent as proposed to be modified, isconsidered to be substantially the same development to which consent was originally granted.This opinion is based on the scope of the proposed modifications relative to the scope of theapproved alterations and additions which included the introduction of a second floor level.The proposed modifications do not introduce an additional level and will not have significantadditional adverse impacts upon the amenity of adjoining properties or the public domainfrom that associated with the approved alterations and additions.

7.6 S96 (2) (b) Consultation with Minister, public authority or approval body

Not applicable.

7.7 Threatened species

The subject modification will not result in any adverse impact upon any threatened species.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning andAssessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings:



8. RELEVANT STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION

8.1 Existing Use Rights.

Whilst the residential flat building use of the subject land is prohibited under the Residential2(a) zone, the assessment of the original development application established that the subjectsite benefited from existing use rights regulated under Sections 107 and 108 & Clauses No40-43 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

Section 107(3) of the EP&A Act 1979 states that “a use is to be presumed, unless thecontrary is established, to be abandoned if it ceased to be actually so used by continuousperiod of 12 months”. In this regard, the applicant has provided adequate informationdemonstrating that the existing use of the site as a residential flat building has not beenabandoned.

Clause 108 (3) states that the provisions of any environmental planning instrument whichderogate from the existing use rights provisions have no force or effect whilst existence rightsremain. Whilst this means that Council cannot refuse the subject application on the basis ofnon-compliances with the provisions of any applicable environmental planning instrument,this report assesses the proposed modifications against such provisions in order to establish aguide as to whether they are satisfactory in terms of environmental impact.

8.2 SEPPs

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

Under clause 7 (1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No 55-Remediation of Land,consideration is required to be been given as to whether the land is contaminated. Theassessment of the original development application concluded that the proposed alterationsand additions did not require further consideration under clause 7 (1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.The same conclusion applies to the proposed modifications.

SEPP No. 56 – Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Tributaries

The subject site fronts Rose Bay and accordingly, the subject application is required to beassessed against the guiding principles listed under Clause 7 of this instrument.

The original proposal was considered to be consistent with the following relevant guidingprinciples contained under Clause 7 of the SEPP:

(g) the protection and improvement of unique visual qualities of the Harbour its foreshoresand tributaries

(j) the scale and character of any development, derived from an analysis of the context ofthe site

(k) the character of any development as viewed from the water and compatibility andsympathy with the character of the surrounding foreshores

It was concluded that the original proposal, by virtue of the relatively minor scope of theworks involved, would be appropriate in the context of the existing and desired futurecharacter of the foreshore area. The approved proposal involved a relatively minor increase inthe height, bulk and scale of the existing development. Further, the proposal was considered



to be desirable in terms of breaking up the flat roof line and provide neededmodulation/articulation to the unsympathetic built form thereby improving the aestheticappearance of the development as viewed from the Rose Bay and the adjoining foreshorearea. The approved proposal was deemed to be sympathetic with the character of thesurrounding foreshore development.

The proposed modifications are considered to be compatible with the character of theapproved alterations and additions and do not involve additional bulk and scale of an extentthat would adversely affect the visual amenity of Sydney Harbour or the foreshore area.Accordingly, the proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory with regard toSEPP No 56.

8.3 REPs

SREP No.23 – Sydney and Middle Harbours

The provisions of Clause 18 and the objectives stated under Clause 2 of this instrumentrequire Council to consider the visual impact that a development proposal will have uponSydney Harbour and the adjoining foreshore areas.

The subject development is highly visible from Sydney Harbour (Rose Bay) and the adjoiningforeshore area. However, the proposed modifications to the approved alterations andadditions will not have any significant adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour or theforeshore areas due to the minor additional bulk and scale and their compatibility with thecharacter of the approved alterations and additions. Accordingly, the proposal is considered tobe satisfactory with regard to the provisions of this instrument.

8.4 Other relevant legislation

There is no other legislation relevant to the proposed modifications.

9. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995

9.1 Aims and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5))

The proposed modifications are considered to be consistent with the aims and objectives ofthe LEP and the relevant objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone.

The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed modifications comply with therelevant statutory controls of WLEP 1995. Given that the proposal benefits from existing userights, the table should be read only as a guideline.

COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENTSTATUTORY CONTROL

Site Area (579.5m²)Approvedalterations

and additions

Proposedmodifications Control Complies

Overall Height (m) 8.5 8.8 9.5 YES

FSBLBeyond the12m FSBL

Beyond the 12mFSBL

12 m FSBL NO



9.2 Height

The proposed modifications involve a maximum height of 8.8 m above existing ground level,which comply with Council 9.5 m height standard.

9.3 FSBL

The subject site is affected by Council's 12 m foreshore building line as measured from themean high water mark of Rose Bay. All of the proposed modifications occur beyondCouncil's 12 m foreshore building line development standard.An objection pursuant to SEPP 1–Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance isnot required due to existing use rights. In any case, a SEPP 1 objection is not required forSection 96 applications. However, the proposed modifications have been assessed against theobjectives of the standard to assist in determining as to whether there they are acceptable interms of environmental impacts.

The objectives of the foreshore building line standard listed under Clause 22AA of WoollahraLEP 1995 are to:

• retain Sydney Harbour’s natural shorelines;• provide larger foreshore setbacks at the points and heads of bays in recognition of their

visual prominence;• protect significant areas of vegetation and, where appropriate, provide areas for future

planting which will not detrimentally impact on views of the harbour and its naturalforeshore;

• protect the amenity of adjoining lands in relation to reasonable access to views andsunlight;

• preserve the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment on the foreshorebuilding line by an existing main building; and

• protect rock platforms and the intertidal ecology.

Having regard to the objectives, it is considered that:

• the proposed modifications do not encroach upon the natural foreshore area of SydneyHarbour

• the subject site is not located at a point or head of Rose Bay

• the proposed modifications do not affect the landscaped setting adjacent to the Harbourand foreshore

• the proposed modifications will not significantly affect the amenity of adjoiningproperties in terms of views and solar access

• the existing main building encroaches beyond the 12 m foreshore building line. Theproposed modifications do not extend beyond the approved building footprint therebymaintaining the existing encroachment

• the proposed modifications do not threaten any rock platforms or the intertidal ecology.

The proposed modifications are considered to be consistent with the above-mentionedobjectives of Council's 12 m foreshore building line.



9.4 Other special clauses/development standards

Clause 18 Excavation

Clause 18 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to consider the impact of proposedexcavation upon the local environment. In this regard, the additional excavation associatedwith the proposed modifications is limited to additional footings at ground floor level. Theextent of this excavation is minor and is considered to be satisfactory with regard to theprovisions of Clause 18 of Woollahra LEP 1995.

Clause 19 HFSPA

Clause 19 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the visualimpact of a development upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore areas. The subjectdevelopment is highly visible from Sydney Harbour (Rose Bay) and the adjoining foreshorearea. However, the proposed modifications to the approved alterations and additions will nothave any significant adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour or the foreshore areas due tothe minor additional bulk and scale and their compatibility with the character of the approvedalterations and additions. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory withregard to the provisions of Clause 19 of Woollahra LEP 1995.

Clause 24 Land adjoining public open space

Clause 24 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the impact ofthe development upon the amenity of an adjoining public open space area and any plan ofmanagement for that public open space area. Dumaresq Reserve adjoins the subject site to thesouth. The proposed modifications are compatible with the character of the approvedalterations and additions. The additional bulk and scale associated with the proposedmodifications will not have any significant adverse visual impact upon Dumaresq Reserve.The proposed modifications are not in conflict with any plan of management for DumaresqReserve.

Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater

Clause 25 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the provision ofadequate stormwater drainage and the provision of adequate water and sewerage services. Theapproved alterations and additions and the proposed modifications do not increase the demandfor water or the generation of wastewater. The development consent contains a conditionaddressing the issue of stormwater drainage. The subject application does not seek to modifythat condition. The proposed modifications do not increase the generation of stormwater run-off from that associated with the approved alterations and additions.

Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils

The subject site is within the Class 5 Acid Sulphate Soil area identified in the Planning NSWAcid Sulphate Soil Risk Map. However, the subject works are not likely to lower the watertable below 1 m AHD on any land within 500 m with a 1, 2, 3 or 4 land classification andtherefore, there is no issue of acid sulphate affectation in this instance.



10. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, aconsent authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planninginstrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have beennotified to the consent authority.

Draft Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2004

This draft planning instrument is aimed at repealing several existing planning instrumentsincluding SREP 23 Sydney and Middle Harbours. The draft SREP requires the considerationof similar issues as SREP 23 such as the visual impact of development upon Sydney Harbourand adjacent foreshore areas.

The subject development is highly visible from Sydney Harbour (Rose Bay) and the adjoiningforeshore area. However, the proposed modifications to the approved alterations and additionswill not have any significant adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour or the foreshoreareas due to the minor additional bulk and scale and their compatibility with the character ofthe approved alterations and additions. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to besatisfactory with regard to the provisions of this draft instrument.

11. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

11.1 Numeric Compliance table - Woollahra Residential Development Control Plan2003

The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed modifications comply with therelevant policy controls of WRDCP 2003. Given that the proposal benefits from existing userights, the table should be read only as a guideline.

Site Area (579.5m²)Approvedalterations

and additions

Proposedmodifications Control Complies

Floor space ratio0.59:1

(342.3 m²)0.64:1

(373 m²)0.55:1

(318.7 m²) NO

Number of storeys 3 3 2 NO

Building Boundary SetbacksSide (northern)Harbour frontage (western)

0.3-0.3450-2.4

0.3-0.3450-2.4

3.0-4.2512 m FSBL*

NONO*

*Refer to section 9.5 FSBL.

Site analysis performance criteria

Part 3 of Woollahra RDCP 2003 requires adequate site analysis documentation forapplications. The subject Section 96 application is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

Performance Criterion C 3.2.1 requires development to fit into the surrounding environmentand pattern of development by responding to surrounding neighbourhood character andstreetscape.



The proposed modifications are considered to be compatible with the approved alterations andadditions and with the architectural form and character of surrounding development. Theproposal will complement the character of the locality and maintain the amenity of thestreetscape.

Desired future precinct character objectives and performance criteria

Performance Criterion 4.9.4 stipulates a minimum side boundary setback of 3.0 m fordevelopment less than 6.0 m high on an allotment with a frontage width of 18 m or greater.The setback requirement increases by 500 mm for every 1 m in height above 5.5 m.

The proposed modifications at second floor level are setback the same distance as theapproved alterations and additions; 0.3-0.345 m from the northern side boundary which is lessthan Council's minimum setback requirement of 3.0-4.25 m. The areas of non-compliancerelate to the 5 m western extension at second floor level and the 300 mm increase to theheight of the second floor level.The relevant objectives of the Rose Bay Precinct aim to encourage development scale that isconsistent with development in the locality, to protect public views of the harbour and thesurrounding area and to maintain the evolution of residential building styles through theintroduction of well-designed contemporary buildings.

The northern elevation of the second floor level adjoins an escarpment and therefore will notadversely affect the adjoining properties to north (Nos 8-10A Tivoli Ave) which are elevatedabove the subject site. Any visual impact associated with the proposed increase to the scale ofthe northern elevation of the second floor addition is limited to perspectives from Rose Bayand the adjoining property to the rear (No 15 Dumaresq Road). The additional scale isconsidered to be minor in terms of the approved alterations and additions and surroundingdevelopment as viewed from Rose Bay. The additional scale presented to No 15 DumaresqRoad, as result of the non-compliance, is also considered to be minor and acceptableconsidering that the proposal is substantially below Council's 9.5 m height limit.

The non-compliance does not obstruct public views and will not compromise the architecturaldesign of the building.

The objectives of Council’s setback controls contained under Section 5.2 Building Size andLocation which apply to all other setback controls, aim to mitigate residential amenity andlandscaping impacts. In this regard, the proposed extensions at second floor level will notresult in additional overshadowing to adjoining properties and will have a minor impact uponprivate views (this issue is discussed in-depth below under the section “Views performancecriteria”). The privacy of adjoining properties will be maintained (this issue is discussed in-depth below under the section “Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria”).Existing landscaping and landscaping potential adjacent to the northern elevation is notreduced by the non-compliance.

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the above-mentioned objectives for theprecinct. In the absence of any significant adverse environmental impact, no objection israised in relation to this area of non-compliance.

Performance Criterion C 4.9.6.7 stipulates a maximum height of two storeys for the precinct.The approved alterations and additions included a small third level (second floor) consistingof an area of approximately 28 m². The proposed modifications seek to increase the size ofthe second floor level by 28.5 m² to 56.5 m² and increase the height of the main northernsection of the second floor level by 300 mm. The proposed modifications thereby exacerbatethe non-compliance with the maximum number of storeys stipulated for the precinct.



As discussed previously, it is considered that these modifications will not have any significantvisual impact upon Sydney Harbour, Dumaresq Reserve, Dumaresq Ave or surroundingresidential properties. Accordingly, no objection is raised in relation to this area of non-compliance.

Streetscape performance criteria

The provisions of Part 5.1 Council's RDCP 2003 requires development to achieve consistencywith the desired future character for the locality and contribute to cohesive streetscapes anddesirable pedestrian environments.

The proposal responds appropriately to the desired future character objectives andperformance criteria for the Rose Bay Precinct contained in Woollahra RDCP 2003. Theproposal is considered to be compatible with the character of surrounding residentialdevelopment. The key natural and built features of the area are appropriately responded to bythe proposal. The proposal complies with the performance criteria stipulated under Part 5.1 ofCouncil's RDCP 2003.

Building size and location performance criteria

The proposed modifications do not vary the building footprint or the degree of overshadowingto adjoining properties from that associated with the approved development and comply withCouncil's front and rear setback requirements.

Whilst there is no floor space ratio control applicable to residential flat building developmentwithin a Residential 2(a) zone, the following discussion of the floor space ratio of theproposed modifications against Council's floor space ratio control for dwelling-housedevelopment is provided as a guide to any potential environmental impact.

The proposed modifications increase the floor space ratio of the approved development from0.59:1 to 0.64:1, which is in excess of Council's maximum of 0.55: 1 applicable to dwelling-house development.

The objectives of Part 5.2 of Woollahra RDCP 2003 involve:

• the preservation of established tree and vegetation networks and the promotion of newnetworks by ensuring sufficient areas for deep soil planting and sufficient setbacksbetween the rear of buildings

• to ensure the size and location of buildings allow for the sharing of views and preserveprivacy and sunlight access for neighbouring residents

• to ensure the form and scale of development is not excessive and maintains the continuityof building forms and front setbacks in the street

• to limit site excavation and minimise cut and fill to ensure that building form relates to thetopography and to protect the amenity of adjoining properties both during and afterconstruction



Having regard to the above-mentioned objectives, the proposed modifications maintain theexisting vegetation, deep soil landscaped areas and the rear setback from that as approved.The proposed extensions at second floor level will not result in additional overshadowing toadjoining properties and will have a minor impact upon private views (this issue is discussedin-depth below under the section “Views performance criteria”). The privacy of adjoiningproperties will be maintained (this issue is discussed in-depth below under the section“Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria”).

As discussed previously, the scale of the proposed modifications is not considered to beexcessive. The front setback to Dumaresq Road is maintained as approved. The proposedmodifications do not alter the topography of the site with only minor excavation associatedwith additional footings.

The proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory with the provisions of Section5.2 of WRDCP 2003.

Views performance criteria

The provisions of Part 5.5 of WRDCP 2003 require the protection and enhancement of publicviews and to encourage view sharing as a means of ensuring equitable access to views fromprivate dwellings. Public views will not be affected by the proposed modifications.

The owners of Nos 15 and 13 Dumaresq Road have objected to the proposed modifications onthe grounds of loss of views. No 15 Dumaresq Road is occupied by a single dwelling-house.No 13 Dumaresq Road is occupied by three units. An inspection of No 13 Dumaresq Roadrevealed that unit No 1 at ground floor level would not experience any loss of views.

The LEC in Tenacity Consulting Pty Ltd V Warringah Council has adopted a four-stepassessment of view affectation. The steps are as follows:

• the assessment of the views affected• consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained• the extent of the impact and• the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

The above mentioned four-step assessment has been adopted for each of the propertiesidentified above.

15 Dumaresq Road

The assessment of the views affected

Views affected from this property are of Sydney Harbour. Views unaffected from thisproperty are substantial views of Sydney Harbour, harbour foreshore areas, the SydneyHarbour Bridge, the Sydney Opera House, the North Sydney City skyline and the SydneyCity skyline.

Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are obtained from the main internal living areas and external private open spaceareas.



The extent of the impact

The proposed modifications will result in a minor loss of Harbour views from this property.

The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

Considering that the proposal complies with Council's height standard and that the extent ofthe view loss impact is minor, the proposed modifications are considered to be reasonable interms of affectation of private views.

2/13 Dumaresq Road


Views affected from this property are of Sydney Harbour and a section of the Middle Harbourforeshore. Views unaffected from this property are substantial views of Sydney Harbour,harbour foreshore areas, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the North Sydney City skyline and theSydney City skyline.Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are obtained from the main internal living areas and an external private open spacearea.


The proposed modifications will result in a minor loss of Harbour and Harbour foreshoreviews from this property.

The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

Considering that the proposal complies with Council's height standard and that the extent ofthe view loss impact is minor, the proposed modifications are considered to be reasonable interms of affectation of private views.

3/13 Dumaresq Road


Views affected from this property are of Sydney Harbour and a section of the Middle Harbourforeshore. Views unaffected from this property are substantial views of Sydney Harbour,harbour foreshore areas, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the North Sydney City skyline and theSydney City skyline.

Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained

The views are obtained from the main internal living areas and an external private open spacearea.


The proposed modifications will result in a minor loss of Harbour and Harbour foreshoreviews from this property.



The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impactConsidering that the proposal complies with Council's height standard and that the extent ofthe view loss impact is minor, the proposed modifications are considered to be reasonable interms of affectation of private views.

Concerns have also been expressed as to the planters indicated on the rooftop to the first floorlevel (roof terrace area) and the impact of future planting thereto upon views from No 13Dumaresq Road. In this regard, the subject modifications do not relate to the approvedplanters to the roof terrace or to Condition No 47 of the development consent which restrictsthe height of planting within the planters in order to preserve views from No 13 DumaresqRoad.

The proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions ofPart 5.5 of WRDCP 2003.

Stormwater management performance criteria

The provisions of Part 5.7 of Council's RDCP 2003, require adequate stormwatermanagement. . The development consent contains a condition addressing the issue ofstormwater drainage. The subject application does not seek to modify that condition. Theproposed modifications do not increase the generation of stormwater run-off from thatassociated with the approved alterations and additions.

Acoustic and visual privacy performance criteria

The provisions of Part 5.8 of WRDCP 2003 require the maintenance of the visual andacoustic privacy of adjoining properties.

Objections to the proposed modifications involve the concern that the proposed family roomextension to the second floor level will result in the loss of privacy to surrounding propertiesdue to an assumed increase in the use of the approved roof terrace. In this regard, theproposed family room extension contains an independent balcony to the western elevation.The proposed family room does not increase the occupancy of the building or the accessibilityto the roof terrace from the approved scheme. Therefore the proposed modifications do notinvolve any potential to adversely affect the privacy of adjoining properties beyond thatassociated with the approved alterations and additions.

The proposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory with the performance criteriaand objective under Part 5.8 of WRDCP 2003.

Harbour foreshore development performance criteria

Part 5.11 of Woollahra RDCP 2003 requires the protection of the visual amenity of SydneyHarbour and to protect the foreshore environment. As discussed previously, the proposal willnot have any adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour or the adjoining foreshore area.

Access and mobility performance criteria

The provisions of Part 5.13 of Council's RDCP 2003 require the provision of adequate accessto the development by all people in the community including people with disabilities. Theproposed modifications are considered to be satisfactory in this regard.



11.2 Other DCPs, codes and policies

Woollahra Access DCP

The Woollahra Access DCP requires the provision of adequate access to and within adevelopment including for elderly and disabled persons. The proposed modifications areconsidered to be satisfactory in this regard.

DCP for SREP 23

This DCP requires the consideration of the design and siting of development with the purposeof preventing any adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour. The proposed modificationsare considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

12. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

There are no other regulations applicable to the subject Section 96(1A) Application.

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT

All likely impacts of the proposed development have been assessed elsewhere in this report.

14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising andNotifications DCP. In response, 5 letters of support and 9 letters of objection were received.The objections were received from:

1. D. Studdy DX 375 Sydney-owner of No 15 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

2. E. Briger-770 New South Head Road, Rose Bay

3. J. and L. Knights-14 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

4. No name or addressed provided

5. The Owners Corporation-13 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

6. R. Lamb PO Box 1727 Neutral Bay NSW 2089 on behalf of D Studdy of 15Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

7. D. Mullins-Unit 2/13 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

8. L. Carter-Unit 3/13 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

9. R. Chambers of BBC Consulting Planners PO Box 438 Broadway NSW on behalfof D. Studdy of 15 Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay

The grounds for objection are as follows:

• loss of views• excessive height, scale and bulk



• adverse visual impact upon adjoining properties, Dumaresq Reserve and the Rose Bayforeshore

• excessive floor space ratio• loss of acoustic and visual privacy• the proposal is not substantially the same as the approved development

The above-mentioned concerns have been addressed previously.

15. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under S96 and S79C.

16. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planningand Assessment Act, 1979

THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify development consent to DevelopmentApplication No. DA 474/2003 for alterations and additions to a residential flat building onland at 15A and 15B Dumaresq Road, Rose Bay in the following manner:

The modification of Condition No 1 as follows:

1. Alterations and additions

This consent relates to the work, shown in colour, on plans numbered DA02 C, DA03 B,DA04 C, DA05 D, DA06 D, DA07 D, DA08 C, dated 29May and 23 July 2003, drawnby Gordon & Valich Architects, all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved DAPlans” and the signature of a Council officer, as modified by the work, shown incolour, on plans numbered DA02 B and DA03 C dated September 2004 and DA05 B,DA06 B DA07 E, DA08 D dated 28 July 2004, drawn by Gordon & Valich Architects,all of which carry a Council stamp “Approved S96 Plans” and the signature of aCouncil officer except where amended by the following conditions.

The addition of the following condition:

48. Waterways requirements

• The proposed works are carried out so that:

(a) No materials are eroded, or likely to be eroded, are deposited, or likely tobe deposited, on the bed or shore or into the waters of Rose Bay; and

(b) No materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed, shore orwaters of Rose Bay.

• Any material that does enter Rose Bay must be removed immediately.

• In relation to the above, best practice methods shall be adopted for the on-sitecontrol of runoff, sediment and other pollutants during, and post, construction.



Methods shall be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standardscontained in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils & Constructionissued by the NSW Department of Housing in 1998 and any other relevantCouncil requirements.

• The erosion, sediment and pollution controls shall be installed and stabilisedbefore commencement of site works. This does not include the works associatedwith the construction of the appropriate controls.

• The proposed system for erosion, sediment and pollution control is to beeffectively maintained at or above design capacity for the duration of the worksand until such time as all ground disturbed has been stabilised and rehabilitatedso that it no longer acts as a source of sediment.

• Any material that is to be stockpiled on site is to be stabilised to prevent erosionor dispersal of the material.

• Any landscaping is to be comprised of locally indigenous species, which representthe original plant communities that would have been found along the shoreline inthe vicinity of the subject land.

• The foreshore area and seawall are to be fully protected for the duration of theworks. To this effect machinery, equipment, construction materials and wastereceptacles are not to be stored in or near the inter-tidal area.

• No works are to be undertaken on land owned by the Waterways Authority (iebelow MHWM) without the relevant approvals being granted by the Authority.

Mr D Booth Mr N EconomouSENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER

ADVISING

1. Application for a Construction Certificate

The required Application for a Construction Certificate may be lodged with Council.Alternatively, you may apply to an accredited private certifier for a ConstructionCertificate.

WARNING: Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate prior to thecommencement of any building work is a serious breach of Section 81A(2) of theEnvironmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979. It is also a criminal offence whichattracts substantial penalties and may also result in action in the Land andEnvironment Court and orders for demolition.

ANNEXURES1. Plans and elevations

agenda: application assessment panel

Documents