development committee agenda no. 14/05, 16 august 2005 · 2016-02-02 · development committee...

CITY OF RYDE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

AGENDA NO. 14/05 The above Committee will meet on Tuesday, 16 August, 2005 in Committee Room No. 2, Fifth Floor, Civic Centre, Ryde at 4.00pm to discuss the following matters. Any matters not determined at the meeting will be considered by the Council at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, 23 August, 2005. CONTENTS Item Property/Subject CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT ..................................................... 1 2 78 AGINCOURT ROAD, MARSFIELD. LOT: 1 DP: 515124. Local

Development Application to commence a use - dance studio. LDA 280/2005. Applicant: Mrs Jennifer Engelmann

INSPECTION 4.15PM & INTERVIEW 5.10PM ................................................... 2 3 243 ROWE STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT: C DP: 327357. Local

Development Application for Internal Fitout for Chinese Noodle Shop LDA 198/2005. Applicant: Henry Zhang.

INSPECTION 4.35PM & INTERVIEW 5.25PM ................................................. 28 4 20 ANZAC AVENUE DENISTONE. LOT: B DP: 951441. Local

Development Application for a two storey dwelling LDA 141/2005. Applicant: Mr Joseph Nader.

INSPECTION 4.55PM & INTERVIEW 5.30PM ................................................. 41 5 31 DELMAR PARADE, GLADESVILLE. LOT: 5 DP: 16334. Local

Development Application for Alterations and additions to dwelling including new garage, carport, verandah and terrace, pool and boatshed. LDA 789/2004. Applicant: Freedman Rembel Pty Ltd. INTERVIEW 5.40PM .......................................................................................... 63

6 22 RAILWAY PARADE EASTWOOD. Lot 54 in DP 752035. Local

Development Application for Alterations & Additions for Easy Access to Eastwood Railway Station. LDA 881/2004. Applicant: RailCorp. ............................................................................................................ 89

7 BANK STREET, MEADOWBANK. LOT: 1 DP: 1062266. Local

Development Application for Alterations & Additions for Easy Access to Meadowbank Railway Station. LDA 882/2004. Applicant: RailCorp. .................................................................................................... 113

CITY OF RYDE Development Committee Agenda No. 14/05 Page 1

ITEM 1 CONFIRMATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION: That the report of the meeting of the Development Committee No. 13/05 held on 2 August 2005, be confirmed.


ITEM 2 78 AGINCOURT ROAD, MARSFIELD. LOT: 1 DP: 515124. Local Development Application to commence a use - dance studio. LDA 280/2005. Applicant: Mrs Jennifer Engelmann

INSPECTION 4.15PM INTERVIEW 5.10PM

Manager Assessment Reports 3 August 2005 FILE NO: LDA05/280

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report considers a proposal to change the use of the 1st floor of an existing building to a dance studio. The dance studio presently operates out of the Eastwood Scout Hall building (Ball Ave, Eastwood), which is very dilapidated (and is likely to be sold in the foreseeable future). The subject property has been acquired by the applicant to provide an improved, and more permanent venue. The proposed development has been advertised and notified to adjoining property owners, and 7 objections have been received. The issues raised in the submissions include lack of on-site parking, traffic impacts, and noise impacts, and in the development’s context of the subject site and immediate vicinity, these objections are considered to be quite valid. There have also been 40 submissions in support of the proposal (mostly by students of the dance studio and/or their parents) and these are also addressed within the report. On balance, although the development would undoubtedly bring many positive aspects to the community (eg in terms of promoting a healthy lifestyle), it would also bring adverse impacts to the local area and its residents in terms of the traffic impacts, inadequate on-site parking, noise impacts, and impacts on the amenity of the area through late week night operation (classes until 9.30pm, with traffic movements occurring after this). The DA is recommended for refusal. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Nature of the development and submissions received. SITE: (Refer to attached map.) Address : 78 Agincourt Road, Marsfield Site Area : 575.4m2

Frontage 15.24m Depth 38.1m


ITEM 2 (Continued) Topography and Vegetation : The land generally slopes to the rear, away from

Agincourt Rd. The development is for the use of part of an existing building and involves no removal of existing vegetation.

Existing Buildings : The site contains a shop (Liquor shop) at the front of the

site, with a 2 storey office/warehouse building being located towards the rear. The 1st floor level of this building (the subject premises) is presently vacant.

PLANNING CONTROLS: Zoning : Business Neighbourhood 3(d1) Other : RPSO Mandatory Requirements DCP 29A – Car Parking DCP 27 – Waste Minimisation and Management DCP 37 – Access for People with Disabilities DCP 45 – Energy Smart Water Wise DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The proposed development involves the use of the use of the 1st floor level of the existing commercial building as a dance studio, predominantly for pre-schoolers and school children. This first floor level has an area of approx. 164m2, including the dance studio, toilets and kitchenette (139.9m2 without including kitchenette and toilets). This kitchenette is to be used solely by staff, and no food or drink (other than drinking water) is proposed to be supplied to students of the dance studio. The studio is proposed to involve the employment of 5 people at any one time, comprising the principal of the studio, 2 part-time instructors, and 2 junior helpers. Surveys of the existing studio have indicated that a maximum of 40 people would attend at any one time (this number is rarely achieved), with an average of 23 people per session. The proposed hours of operation of the centre are: • 4pm – 9.30pm Monday – Wednesday • 4pm – 8.30pm Thursday • 4pm – 7pm Friday • 8.30am – 3pm Saturday. The following works are proposed to be carried out to facilitate the use: • the installation of fixed obscure glazed windows in the southern and western

elevations of the 1st floor level of the building, to eliminate overlooking of the residential properties to the south and west of the site and to contain noise within the premises;

• the installation of a bi-fold partition wall;


ITEM 2 (Continued) • the re-covering of the floor with 4mm thick vinyl overlay to reduce the physical

impact on students; • internal painting; • the carrying out of various internal works recommended in the Building Code of

Australia (BCA) report submitted with the DA. The proposed provision of on-site car parking is 6 spaces on the southern side of the building, in the form of 2 rows of 3 “stacked” parking spaces between the building and the southern boundary fence. HISTORY: The applicant has been needing to relocate from their current premises in the Eastwood Scout Hall (Ball Ave, Eastwood) for some time due to the run-down nature of those premises, and also because the Scout Hall is to be sold in the foreseeable future. It is understood that other premises have been investigated but found to be unsuitable because they have concrete floors and are unsuitable for the dance studio, or concerns expressed by owners of other halls that dancing would scratch wooden floors. Other issues have included unavailability when required for the dance studio’s activities, or the inability of other halls to be divided into 2 studios. The subject premises have been acquired by the applicant because of issues associated with their current premises, and to provide a permanent home for the centre. On 14 May 2004, the applicants lodged a DA with Council for the proposed use (LDA04/388). Shortly after, Council wrote to the applicant to advise of concerns regarding compliance with the BCA, and the need for amended plans/additional information addressing compliance with the BCA in terms of egress from the building, as well as the provision of a higher type of fire resistance construction. Other concerns/additional information included the need to provide details of the location of parking spaces, and the submission of an acoustic consultant’s report to ensure that the amenity of the residential area would not be unreasonably compromised. On 8 June 2004, the applicant’s building consultant submitted an access consultant’s report, and requested clarification on the issue of off-street parking prior to engaging an acoustic engineer. Council’s staff responded on 22 June 2004 by raising concerns about the suitability of the proposed premises, likely impacts on the neighbourhood, particularly in terms of off-street parking, and the proposal generally. On 28 June 2004, the applicant formally withdrew the previous LDA 388/04.


ITEM 2 (Continued) The current DA (LDA 280/05) was lodged with Council on 27 April 2005, with more information than was contained in the previous DA to address the concerns raised with the previous DA. A preliminary assessment of this new DA was made by Council’s staff, and on 3 May 2005, Council wrote to the applicant to request further information and raise concerns about the proposed development. These issues included: • BCA compliance issues. The proposal is assessed as a change in classification

to Class 9b, which requires a minimum of 2 exits, based on the number of people (50) which could be accommodated in the floor area involved in this building. If an exemption is sought, then the applicant’s Building Consultant would need to submit a supporting argument based on appropriate fire safety principles for Council’s consideration.

• The stacked parking arrangement (6 spaces in 2 rows of 3 stacked spaces). It was advised that this was not supported as vehicles would need to exit the site in reverse (there is no area on-site for manoeuvring)

• Noise impacts. Concerns were raised about noise impacts on surrounding residential properties, and it was advised that a noise report will need to be submitted.

Council Officers advised in a letter of 3 May 2005 that they would be unlikely to support the proposed development based on the issues raised above. On 10 May 2005, the applicant met with the Mayor, Councillor Terry Perram, and the Manager Assessment to discuss the issues in Council’s letter of 3 May 2005. In this meeting, the applicants advised that they had purchased the property because their current premises are soon to be sold, and had spent substantial amounts of money with the property purchase, and in the DA preparation. It was agreed at the meeting that the applicant would respond in writing to Council’s letter of 3 May 2005, and that the notification and assessment would proceed as a matter of urgency (including an inspection with Council’s Building and Environmental Health staff to investigate BCA and noise issues). It was also agreed that despite the application being assessed as a matter of urgency, no guarantee of a favourable outcome would be given, because of the issues of the application, and likely impacts on residential amenity. The applicant prepared a written response on 12 May 2005. In it, she advised that she will attend to the various Council requirements (fire stairs, noise attenuation) when the application is approved. She further advises her classes do not cater for disabled people, and therefore there is no need to provide disabled access. With respect to the car parking issue, the applicant advises that most of her students are dropped off and picked up later, and that the proposed parking arrangement is acceptable having regard to the nature of her proposed studio. The application then proceeded to advertising/notification, and was referred to various departments within Council. Further details are provided later in this report regarding these processes.


ITEM 2 (Continued) REFERRALS: Building Surveyor: The proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions (such conditions could be imposed if Council decides to approve the DA). The areas of non-compliance listed in the “Assessment Report for BCA Compliance” can be undertaken as part of development consent conditions. The costs associated with providing disabled access to the 1st floor of the development is considered to be grounds for “unjustifiable hardship”, as indicated in the applicant’s Access Report. Environmental Health Officer: The DA submission contains insufficient detail for assessment. The applicant would be required to submit a report from a suitably qualified acoustical consultant including: • A description of the proposal and details of all potential noise sources • The proposed hours of operation • Present background noise levels • Details of all potential noise control measures • Predicted noise levels at any nearby residential premises • An assessment of the noise impact. Traffic Engineer: • The development site is located within a residential area with some commercial

activities. There is a Council hall, a school and a church in close proximity. All of these properties have some kind of off street parking.

• The southern side of Agincourt Rd has huge traffic and parking demand due to the liquor shop, general store and coffee shop. Street parking on both sides of Agincourt Rd is in high demand due to the mixed landuse in close proximity of the proposed development.

• The development does not comply with Council’s Parking Code. The applicant has proposed stack parking for 6 cars on the southern side of the proposed building. On safety grounds this type of parking is not acceptable due to conflicts between young age children and cars. Also all 6 cars have to reverse out onto busy Agincourt Rd. It should be noted that there is only 5m width available between the building and the boundary fence.

• There are no specific locations in Agincourt Rd for parents to pick up and drop off children for dance classes. None of the 3 existing shops have off street parking for customers.

• The existing coffee shop operates in the evening except on Monday. This would require more on street parking and will inconvenience local residents. Residents of Agincourt Rd have complained in the past regarding illegal parking near the intersection of Valewood Cres.

• High demand for parking in the evening would push cars into the existing open carpark of the Eastwood Hall or on to the footpath of Agincourt Rd.

• The intersection of Agincourt Rd and Valewood Cres would become a potential site for accidents due to additional traffic and parking.


ITEM 2 (Continued) OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT: The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources' Guide to Section 79C – Potential Matters for Consideration. 1. Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning

Business Neighbourhood 3(d1). The proposed development would be categorised as a commercial premises which is permissible with Council’s consent within the zoning of this property.

Mandatory Requirements

The only clause of particular relevance to the proposed development is clause 88 that requires assessment of impacts of developments in the vicinity of heritage items. The subject land is within 100m of the former Eastwood Town Hall which is listed as a heritage item under the RPSO. The proposal relates only to the occupation of part of an existing building and does not involve any external alterations or signage. It is considered that the proposed development would have no impact on the heritage significance of the former Eastwood Town Hall.

(b) The Provisions of Any Draft Local Environmental Plan

None relevant. (c) The Provisions of Development Control Plans

DCP 27 – Waste Minimisation and Management The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan in compliance with the provisions of DCP 27. DCP 29A – Car Parking DCP 29A does not prescribe a parking requirement for “dance studios”. The merits and characteristics of the DA should be used to determine the required amount of car parking. The parking requirements in this DCP for other similar types of developments shall also be used as a guide to assess the amount of parking required for this development.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

The following table indicates the DCP rates for other similar landuses, which is provided as a guide in the assessment of the parking requirements for this development:

Landuse DCP Requirement Proposal No. of Spaces Required

Office 1 space/30m2 139.9m2 (not inc. kitchenette/toilets)

4.63

Educational Establishments

1 space/2 employees

1 space/5 students

1 ‘principal’ + 2 p/t instructors

av. 23 (max. 40)

1.5 +

4.6 (max. 8) 6.1 to 9.5

In providing the above information, it is pointed out that the development is neither an educational establishment, nor an office. These are the closest types of landuses to the proposed development listed in DCP 29A and are provided as a guide for assessment of the parking requirements of this development. The actual development, in practice, would require at least 2-3 spaces for the principal and the part time instructors for longer time periods (being the 4-5 hour periods when the studio would be open each day), plus another 3-4 spaces for shorter time periods for parent drop-off/pick-up of children. Therefore the development would require 5-7 spaces as a minimum, taking into account the actual development’s parking needs (based on surveys and information about the current use of their Ball Ave Eastwood premises), and the comparative rates provided in DCP 29A. Up to 10 spaces would be preferable to help cope with maximum demand. The DA plans show the provision of 6 “stacked” parking spaces on the southern side of the building. These are to be provided in 2 rows of 3 spaces each, in the space 5m wide between the building and the boundary fence. Therefore the strict numerical requirements can probably met, however strong concerns are raised as to the usability of these spaces. Firstly, there is no area available in/near the parking area for vehicle manoeuvring, due to the location of the building and its proximity to the boundary fence. This area is only 5m wide, which would not be sufficient to allow cars to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. Cars would need to reverse along the length of the driveway then onto Agincourt Rd, which could be dangerous considering: • the development itself involves children visiting the site (including pre-school

aged) • the shops which adjoin this site have no on-site parking, which causes their

customers’ vehicles to park on the street, potentially restricting sight distances around the driveway entrance of the subject site

• Agincourt Rd carries a relatively large volume of traffic for a local road


ITEM 2 (Continued)

• the reversing of a car is naturally more difficult than driving in a forward direction (in terms of visibility, etc).

Secondly, in the proposed parking layout, visitor’s (e.g. parents dropping off / picking up their children) cars would often be blocked in by other cars. Even the situation of 2 employees parking in a stacked arrangement would require some co-ordination between each other to ensure that no inconvenience is caused. A stacked arrangement for parents' vehicles would not be acceptable. Thirdly, 1 of the spaces would need to be deleted to provide access to the entry door at ground level. As indicated in the applicant’s own BCA report, “an exit must not be blocked or be capable of being blocked at its point of discharge”. To achieve this, it is recommended that bollards be installed in front of the entry door to prevent vehicles blocking the exit. Generally, under the BCA, a 1m clearance is required in front of the entry door to allow safe access to/from the building. As the width of the proposed parking area is only 5m, to comply with these requirements, the parking space in front of the entry door would need to be deleted, further reducing the number of spaces available on-site to just 5. In view of all of these difficulties with on-site parking, it is likely that parents simply would not use the designated parking spaces, and would simply park on the street. As indicated in the submissions, on-street parking is already at a premium in this area due to other shops, Curzon Hall etc. On balance, having regard to the parking requirements for the proposed development, and the particular need to provide a safe parking environment because the development involves children, the development is not considered to be satisfactory in terms of on-site parking.

DCP 37 – Access for People with Disabilities Council’s Building Surveyor has considered the issue of access for people with disabilities, as indicated in Referrals above. It is advised that the costs associated with providing disabled access to the 1st floor of the development is considered to be grounds for “unjustifiable hardship”, as indicated in the applicant’s Access Report. DCP 45 – Energy Smart Water Wise Conditions of consent could be imposed to address compliance with DCP, should Council decide to approve this DA.


ITEM 2 (Continued) 2. The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts

on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Built Environment The development proposes the use of part of an existing building, and only involves internal works (minor alterations) to accommodate the proposed dance studio. As such, it would have minimal impact in terms of the built environment. Natural Environment Similarly, the development would have minimal impact in terms of the natural environment. Social and Economic Impacts It is the social and economic impacts of this development which require detailed consideration. It is considered that when considering a development proposal of this type, “social and economic impact” can encompass matters such as impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood, relationship to adjoining land, as well as any benefit to the community which the proposed development could bring to the area. Amenity ImpactsThe development has a number of potential amenity impacts requiring assessment. Firstly, there are potential noise impacts, both from within the studio itself, and also traffic noise. The impacts of noise (from amplified music etc) could possibly be addressed through noise attenuation measures to the building. The applicant has indicated that she would be prepared to undertake these “after the development is approved”. Although these issues are considered to be fundamental to the application, and Council’s Environmental Health Officer has requested a detailed noise assessment from an acoustical consultant, it has been decided not to put the applicant to the expense of such an assessment because other issues of this DA are unsatisfactory and cannot be resolved due to site constraints (lack of parking on site), the nature of the development (hours of operation, traffic movements etc), and the proximity of adjoining dwellings. The issue of vehicle noise is much harder to address by the applicant. The hours of operation (up to 9.30pm) and number of participants (max. 40, average 23) means that it is reasonable to expect 10-15 additional vehicle movements in evening hours when people in adjoining residences would normally want to relax. Such an amount of traffic movements and related traffic noise may be reasonable on particular occasions or one-off events, but this could be a regular impact every night when classes are held.


ITEM 2 (Continued) The lack of adequate on-site parking would worsen this situation as vehicles would be parked closer to adjoining residential properties, increasing the impacts of noise in the evening hours. Secondly, parking issues are another aspect of the development which could cause amenity impacts. As discussed under DCP 29A above, the development does not provide adequate on-site parking for a development of this type, and the parking area proposed is unsatisfactory as there is no vehicle manoeuvring to allow cars to enter and leave the site in a forward direction. The unsatisfactory parking layout would cause vehicles to park on the street, and it has already been identified that there is little on-street parking available when other landuses (eg Curzon Hall, former Town Hall building, the neighbouring shops) are in operation. Thirdly, traffic issues could also cause amenity impacts in terms of traffic safety and traffic noise. As discussed throughout this report, there would be increased traffic in the evening (classes are proposed up to 9.30pm on some weeknights), and if parents used the proposed parking area, they would be required to reverse their vehicles out on to Agincourt Rd. Relationship to Adjoining LandThe proposed studio building is situated within a predominantly residential environment. There are a number of dwellings within very close proximity of the studio building – either immediately adjoining the site or across Agincourt Rd. The dwellings at 80 Agincourt Rd, 6 Diane and 8 Diane St in particular are within 20m of the proposed studio building. This close proximity of the proposed studio building to neighbouring dwellings will magnify the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development identified in this report. Community Benefits There is no doubt that the dance studio would bring many benefits to the community. This dance studio already enhances the community of the City of Ryde (it presently operates from the Eastwood Scout Hall in Ball Ave Eastwood), and would continue to provide a valuable service to the local community and encourage children to participate in healthy activities. These positive aspects of the development are by no means underestimated in the assessment of this application. However, these benefits to the community must be taken into consideration on balance with the impacts of the development, as discussed throughout this report (namely inadequate parking provision, lack of area on-street for parent drop-off/pick-up of children, traffic movements, and noise impacts).


ITEM 2 (Continued) In addition to these issues, concern is also raised as to the potential for expansion or proliferation of the development. It is evident (from the submissions – see Section 4 of this report) that the dance studio is extremely professional, well-run and successful, but is operating from a very inadequate venue (it is old, dilapidated, hot in summer/cold in winter, poor toilet facilities for children, etc). It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that this studio would be even more successful in better facilities such as the subject building, which may encourage a greater number of participants. This in turn would potentially lead to a (future) worsening of the potential adverse impacts on neighbouring properties already identified. Although it is clearly recognised that the development would have many positive community benefits, and would undoubtedly be a much better facility for the dance studio’s students, it is not considered that these outweigh the adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development would have unsatisfactory social and economic impacts in the locality. 3. Suitability of the site for the development The site is not subject to any constraints (eg overland stormwater flow etc) that would render it unsuitable for the proposed development. However, it is considered that given the location of the existing building, the characteristics of the site and its surrounds, and the proximity of adjoining residential properties, the development as proposed would have an inadequate parking provision, lack of area on-street for parent drop-off/pick-up of children, would cause excessive traffic movements in the evenings, and noise impacts. It is therefore considered that the site is unsuitable for the proposed development of this type. 4. Any submissions received The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Notification. The application was advertised in the press dated 25 May 2005. Notification of the proposal was for a period of 21 days until 9 June 2005. During the notification period 7 objections and 40 submissions in support were received. The following sections will deal with the issues raised in all the submissions (both against and for the development). ATTACHED to this report, are summaries of the issues raised in all of the submissions (for and against).


ITEM 2 (Continued) The issues raised in the objections were: The proposal provides inadequate on-site parking. 6 spaces would not be enough for a studio with an average of 23 students (maximum of 40). The 6 marked spaces are inaccessible because of their stacked formation and therefore they will not be used, resulting in more on street parking. There is already a high demand for on street parking because of the other adjoining shops. Comment: These are considered to be valid concerns. It is not considered that 6 parking spaces would be adequate for the development. As discussed previously, in effect there would only be 5 spaces available because space needs to be made in front of the entry door for the required 1m wide physical access to/from the studio. Also these parking spaces would be unlikely to be used because of their stacked formation and lack of vehicle turning area. It would be more practical for drivers to simply park on the street, and this would unreasonably disrupt residential amenity. The development will cause excessive noise both from amplified music and also traffic noise. These will be unacceptable considering the hours of operation of the development. Comment: As discussed previously, noise issues from within the building may be able to be overcome through noise attenuation measures. Traffic noise would be harder to overcome (if not impossible) due to the proposed hours of operation and the nature of the proposed use. The development will cause excessive traffic impacts. Comment: Agreed. The development would result in traffic movements both in the afternoon periods when classes begin (which would add to after school traffic), and also in evening hours at the end of classes (which could disrupt residential amenity). The development would adversely impact on privacy (aural and visual). Comment: There are no particular components to the development which would cause overlooking of adjoining properties. The applicant also proposes obscure fixed glazing to the windows to address this issue. Noise impacts on adjoining properties are discussed elsewhere in this report. A dance studio is not needed in a residential area and is not appropriate. These facilities should be located in commercial areas where they do not disrupt residential environments. Comment: A dance studio is not necessarily considered to be inappropriate for a residential situation per se, provided its impacts on neighbouring residential properties are managed in an acceptable manner. The subject development is considered to be unsatisfactory because of its inadequate parking provision, lack of area on-street for parent drop-off/pick-up of children, traffic movements, hours of operation, and noise impacts. The proposed hours of operation are unacceptable. Comment: Agreed, this will cause adverse impacts of traffic noise and disruption to residential amenity, as discussed elsewhere in this report.


ITEM 2 (Continued) It is not clear why the dance studio is relocating from their current premises. Comment: As indicated elsewhere in this report, the studio’s current premises are dilapidated and unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, and also because it is likely to be sold in the near future. The proposed development would result in a reduction in property values. Comment: No evidence has been submitted to support this claim. The issues raised in the submissions in support were: The existing venue for the dance studio (Ball Ave, Eastwood) is most unsatisfactory (eg it has poor toilet facilities for children, the hall is dirty, it is cold in winter/hot in summer, it is in a state of disrepair, it is dusty, has poor lighting, has poor ventilation, has surrounding areas which are dark and unsafe for children, its walls need painting) The new facility would be much more suitable. Comment: These issues regarding the poor state of the existing facility are noted, however they do not justify approval of the application at the subject site if the impacts of the development at this site are unacceptable. A balanced consideration of the positive and negative impacts must be made on the development application as presented to Council. On balance, the proposed development is considered to be unsatisfactory in terms of its impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood, as discussed throughout this report. The existing venue for the dance studio is soon to be sold. There are very few other appropriate alternative venues for this type of facility. Comment: Again, these issues are noted, but are not considered to be justification for approval of this development if its impacts at the subject site are unacceptable. The dance studio is very professional and well-run. The teacher is a gifted and nurturing dance tutor. Comment: These issues have been previously discussed in Social and Economic Impacts. It is likely that if the dance studio is relocated to better premises than existing, there could be an expansion/proliferation in the numbers of people participating, which could lead to greater amenity impacts in the neighbourhood. The dance studio would bring many benefits to the community. It provides great support to the community, it would bring additional customers to neighbouring businesses, provides entertainment to the community and the studio and its students participate in local events/festivals, and promotes healthy activities for children. Comment: As discussed previously in this report, the many positive community benefits which this development could bring are clearly recognised and by no means underestimated. However, these are required to be considered on balance with any adverse impacts as part of an overall assessment of the development’s social and economic impacts.


ITEM 2 (Continued) The development does not require on-site parking as parents drop-off their children and return to pick them up later, and many parents car pool. Also, many of the participants are local residents and could walk to/from the new site, and others could use public transport. On-street parking is available in the area. Comment: As discussed previously in this report, one of the reasons why the development is unsatisfactory is the lack of appropriate on-site car parking, and it is not considered appropriate in this predominantly residential environment to rely on on-street parking, particularly when some of the classes are proposed to end at 9.30 in the evenings. This is considered to be an unreasonable disruption to residential amenity, particularly during the week. It is recognised that some of the parents would car-pool, however there is no particular space available for drop-off and pick-up of children, and this would also need to be done on-street. It is noted that the existing shops near the site (liquor shop, pizza shop and coffee shop) also rely on on-street parking, and therefore any additional on-street parking demand from a new development would worsen an already undesirable situation. It is noted that some of the students of the studio could walk to the new site. The development would not cause excessive traffic movements, and Agincourt Rd could handle the additional demand caused by the dance studio. The centre does not operate at peak times for schools etc, and therefore it would not cause excessive traffic conflicts. Traffic around the Eastwood Scout Hall is heavy and this site would have less traffic in the vicinity. Comment: The studio’s policy of no parent watching realistically results in twice the traffic movements (compared to a situation where parents stay for the duration of the children’s class). At the beginning of the weekday classes (usually 4pm), the traffic of parents arriving at the site would co-incide with traffic associated with returning home from school, while at the end of the classes (as late as 9.30pm), traffic of parents coming to pick up their children and then leaving afterwards would be a disruption to the evening residential amenity. Traffic around this site may be less than that associated with the Eastwood Scout Hall, but this site is in a more residential area and the potential for disruption of residential amenity is greater. The proposed development is also not supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer. 5. The Public Interest In the circumstances of the case and having regard to the valid concerns raised by adjoining owners, it is considered that approval of the development would not be in the public interest.


ITEM 2 (Continued) CONCLUSION: The proposal has been assessed using the heads of consideration listed in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be unsatisfactory. The development would have unsatisfactory impacts on adjoining properties particularly in terms of noise, traffic and potential issues associated with expansion/proliferation of the development. The proposed parking arrangements are unsatisfactory for the proposed use and would lead to an increase in on-street parking as parents wait to pick up or drop off children, which would also adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining residents. It is recognised that the development would bring significant community benefits associated with the promotion of a healthier lifestyle for children as well as contributions to local festivals, etc. However, it is not considered that these benefits outweigh the adverse impacts which the development would have on adjoining residential property owners. The subject site is considered to be unsuitable for the proposed development for the reasons outlined in this report, and the most critical of these (namely on-site parking and traffic impacts) cannot be overcome through design changes or submission of additional information due to the positioning of the building (in the case of parking), and due to the hours of operation (in the case of traffic movements in the late afternoon/evening). The issue of noise impacts may be able to be overcome, but other issues cannot be overcome (see above). Therefore it was not considered prudent to put the applicant to additional unnecessary expense of addressing noise issues while other issues (traffic and parking) could not be satisfactorily resolved in the context of the proposed development. On balance, the development is considered to be unsatisfactory and refusal is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. 280/2005 at 78 Agincourt Road,

Marsfield, being LOT: 1 DP: 515124 be refused for the following reasons: 1. Insufficient information has been submitted to properly assess the noise

impacts of the development. 2. The development proposes unsatisfactory arrangements for on-site car

parking.

3. The development is unsatisfactory in terms of traffic impacts. 4. The development would have unsatisfactory social and economic impacts in

the locality.


ITEM 2 (Continued)

5. The subject site is unsuitable for the proposed development because of its unsatisfactory car parking arrangements and proximity to adjoining residential development.

6. In the circumstances of the case, approval of the development would not be

in the public interest, as evidenced by the objections received in relation to the development application.

(b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of the decision.

Liz Coad Chris Young Manager Assessment Team Leader – Assessment


ITEM 2 (Continued)

Indicates submissions received Other submissions received outside map area

COPYRIGHT

© 2005 City of Ryde.© 2005 Land and Property Information NSW.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this map may be reproduced without written permission.

City of Ryde

Development Application280/2005

Civic Centre, 1 Devlin StreetRYDE NSW 2112

Locked Bag 2069NORTH RYDE NSW 1670

Tel: 9952 8222 Fax: 9952 8070

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ryde.nsw.gov.au

16

910

8

3

64

62

60

69

1

1A

89

84

82

13

2A

3

75

D

7

77

9

1

9

PW 69

AGIN

CO

UR

T RD

RUTH ST

79

78

76

74

12

93

8780

3

4

6

1

3

10

12

66

68

70

72

7

5

2

71

14

311A

8

1

5

126

4

2

8

1

2

7

99

101

81

109

103

105

07

10

79

86

11

13

5

3

7

VINC

84

AGIN

CO

URKEILEY ST

KEILEY ST

DIANE ST

AGINC

OURT R

D

DO

VALEWOOD CRES

DP 616351

DP 416681DP 8787

DP 853803

66

DP 576376DP 239903

DP 239904

224

20

18

13

235

1

16

3

133A

3

2930

32

17

1531

32

2

B

14

22

31

21

DP 528469DP 549401

DP 225462

DP 354215

1

233

B

4

1

25

DP 731028

DP 227851

DP 238680

DP 876056DP 515124DP 531063

DP 52608024

56

7

65

7

DP 259294

DP 238680DP 227851

18

19

1

22

8

2

4

1

11

2

21

2

4

11

12

3

10

9

1

18

4

851

17

17

6

16

3

1

Scale: 1:1500 approx.

Date: 08/08/2005


ITEM 2 (Continued)

CITY OF RYDE Development Committee Agenda No. X/05 Page 28

ITEM 3 243 ROWE STREET, EASTWOOD. LOT: C DP: 327357. Local Development Application for Internal Fitout for Chinese Noodle Shop LDA 198/2005. Applicant: Henry Zhang.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report considers a proposal for a change of use of the existing shop to a Chinese Noodle take away shop. The last approved use for these premises were as a real estate agency, and previous to that, it was used as a pharmacy for many years. The development does not comply with Council’s Stormwater Management DCP for development within the “Development Intensification Restricted” area, because it is a more intense landuse than those which previously existed on the land. It could therefore present a danger to life and property in the event of a flood. The development is unsatisfactory in terms of it being an intensification of the use of the land, depth of stormwater flow within the parking area, and manoeuvring area for parallel car parking. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the DA be refused. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Nature of the development and non-compliance with Council’s Stormwater DCP. SITE: (Refer to attached map.) Address : 243 Rowe Street, Eastwood Site Area : 227.6m2

Frontage 5.08m Depth 45.72m Topography and Vegetation : Generally slopes to rear, site is almost entirely covered

by the existing building. No vegetation. Existing Buildings : Existing shop.


ITEM 3 (Continued) PLANNING CONTROLS: Zoning : Business - Urban Village Other : SEPP 64 – Advertising and Signage DCP 27 – Waste Minimisation and Management DCP 28B – Advertising Signs DCP 37 – Access for People with Disabilities DCP 39 – Eastwood Town Centre DCP 41 – Stormwater Management DCP 45A – Energy Smart Water Wise DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The development proposes the change of use of the existing shop into a Chinese noodle take away shop, and signage (1 top hamper sign and 1 under awning sign). The application indicates that it is to be predominantly a take-away shop, however there will be seating for 16 people in the front of the shop, as shown on the DA plans. The shop proposes to employ 3 people. The hours of operation are proposed to be 9.30am to 10pm, 7 days a week. 4 parallel stacked parking spaces are proposed at the rear of the site, with access from Hillview Lane. HISTORY: The DA was lodged on 23 March 2005. Following a preliminary assessment, Council officers wrote to the applicant on 4 April 2005 advising that in accordance with Council’s Stormwater DCP 41, the use cannot be approved due to the increased risk of patrons using the site. At this point, Council also advised the applicant to withdraw the DA. On 8 April 2005, the applicant responded to Council’s letter by advising that there are a number of other restaurants in the same street, and requesting Council to proceed with its assessment and determination. On 26 April 2005, the DA was referred to the assessing officer and to Council’s Environmental Health Officer, Development Engineer and Drainage Team. On 26 July 2005, Council’s Development Engineer formally advised that the Drainage Team had advised them that the application cannot be supported, and that the application should be refused on the grounds of intensification of the use of the land, depth of stormwater flow within the parking area, and manoeuvring area for parallel car parking.


ITEM 3 (Continued) REFERRALS: Development Engineer: The proposed development is in the section of Rowe Street that is subject to an overland flow situation on major storm events. The Drainage Team have provided comments in a separate memo (available on file) and have indicated that the application cannot be supported. Based on this recommendation and recent advice from Council’s solicitors regarding developments subject to overland flow it is recommended that the application be refused on the following grounds. • No compliance with section 7.7.4 of DCP 41 with regard to an increase in the use of

the land. • Non compliance with section 7.5 of DCP 41 with regard to depth of stormwater flow in

a car parking area. • No compliance with section 2.4.4 of AS 2890.1 with regard to the maneuvering

area for parallel car parking. Environmental Health Officer: The development is satisfactory subject to conditions (which could be imposed should Council decide to approve the DA). OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT: The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources' Guide to Section 79C – Potential Matters for Consideration. 1. Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

Zoning

3(uv) Business - Urban Village. The proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

Mandatory Requirements

The proposal is subject to various mandatory requirements under the RPSO. Clause 42 deals with advertising signs. The development would involve the replacement of the existing under awning sign and top hamper sign. These signs are consistent with the criteria in clause 42(4), in that: • It forms part of the overall façade of the building and will not have any adverse

visual impact • It will not have any adverse effect on the built environment or the landscape

setting and surroundings


ITEM 3 (Continued)

• It is a necessary installation and has been designed to integrate with the building façade

• It is of a modest scale and works with the overall scale of the building • It will not result in visual clutter and will not result in signage proliferation in

the streetscape • It will not have any adverse effects in terms of safety. Clause 51A(2) deals with development within Urban Villages. This clause requires Council to consider the following: (a) the planning principles set out in Schedule 17, and (b) the following objectives:

(i) to create a safe and attractive environment for pedestrians (ii) to create a mixed use precinct with emphasis on uses that

promote pedestrian activity and safety at ground level (iii) to create a precinct that contains opportunities and facilities for

living, working, commerce, leisure, culture, community services, education and spiritual nurture

(iv) to increase the number of people living within walking distance of high frequency public transport services

(v) to increase the use of public transport.

The planning principles in Schedule 17 of the RPSO deal with the regional role of development, integrated planning and development, the public domain, urban form, land use mix, transport and access and environmental performance. The planning principles referred to in subclause (a), and the objectives referred to in subclause (b) would be more relevant to a new development or large scale additions in the town centre. The proposed development involves a change of use of the existing shop. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the planning principles and objectives of this clause. Clause 51C deals with the height of buildings in the Eastwood Urban Village, and therefore does not apply to the proposed change of use. Clause 51E relates to land within “Development Intensification Restricted” area, and therefore it applies to the subject land. This clause states: Despite any other provision of this Ordinance, the Council must not grant consent to the carrying out of development of land to which this clause applies that would increase the intensity of use of land unless the Council is satisfied that the extent of stormwater inundation of the land, and the access to the land, during the estimated 100 year ARI (Average Recurrence Interval) stormwater inundation event would not constitute a hazard, or increase a hazard, to persons or property.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

As discussed elsewhere in this report, Council’s Drainage Team and Development Engineers have objected to the proposal. Therefore, the development is considered unsatisfactory in terms of clause 51E.

State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Signage

SEPP 64 defines a ‘building identification sign’ as follows: ‘a sign that identifies or names a building, and that may include the name of a business or building, the street number of a building, the nature of the business and a logo or other symbol that identifies the business, but that does not include general advertising of products, goods or services’ The aims and objectives of SEPP 64 are stated in Part 1 Clause 3(1) as follows: (a) to ensure that signage (including advertising):

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish, and (b) to regulate signage (but not content) under Part 4 of the Act, and (c) to provide time-limited consents for the display of certain advertisements.

SEPP 64 Part 2 Clause 8 of states the following: A consent authority must not grant development consent to an application to display signage unless the consent authority is satisfied: (a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of this Policy as

set out in Clause 3(1)(a), and; (b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the

assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1. As demonstrated in the assessment of this application, the signage is compatible with the objectives of SEPP 64. Schedule 1 of SEPP 64 considers such matters as the character of the area, special areas, views and vistas, streetscape setting or landscape, site and building, associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures, illumination, and safety. The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory, having regard to the assessment criteria contained in Schedule 1 and the aims of SEPP 64.

Accordingly, the proposed signs are considered to be satisfactory, having regard to the aims and objectives of SEPP 64 Advertising and Signage.

(b) Any draft LEPs

None relevant.


ITEM 3 (Continued)

(c) Any DCP (e.g. dwelling house, villa) DCP 27 – Waste Minimisation and Management A Waste Management Plan has been submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Environmental Health Officers, and therefore the provisions of this DCP are considered to be satisfied. DCP 28B – Advertising Signs The development involves the change of wording of existing signage to read “Yum Noodle Takeaway” (and equivalent in the Chinese language). This change of wording complies with the provisions of DCP 28B. If Council decides to approve this DA, then it will be necessary to impose a condition requiring signage to be displayed in the English language (as per clause 2.2 (a) and (b) of the DCP) as follows: (a) All advertising signs are to be displayed in the English language but may include a translation into another language using letters or characters that are no larger than the English language letters or characters. (b) Any translated message must be accurate and complete. DCP 37 – Access for People with Disabilities In terms of access for people with disabilities, the proposed change of use is considered to be a minor refurbishment to an existing building, and for these types of developments, the DCP requires that accessibility shall not be made worse. The proposed development would comply with this requirement, and would be considered satisfactory in terms of DCP 37. DCP 39 – Eastwood Town Centre As the proposed development relates to a change of use, many of the controls in this DCP would not be triggered, as they are more applicable to new developments (ie mixed use commercial/residential developments etc). The provisions in this DCP relating to stormwater management etc have been assessed (under the more detailed provisions contained in DCP 41) by the Development Engineers who have found this aspect of the development to be unsatisfactory. In terms of car parking, the provisions of Council’s Car Parking DCP regarding changes of use which require the provision of a greater number of on-site parking spaces than the previous use apply to this development. In such a situation, the difference between the amount of parking which would be required for the previous use and the amount of parking required for the proposed use must be provided. The assessment of car parking required for this development is shown in the table below:


ITEM 3 (Continued)

Current Proposal Previous Approved Use Difference Restaurant/take away noodle shop Rate: 1 space/5m2 of dining areas for “restaurants”

Real Estate Agent Rate: 1 space/46m2 of net usable floor space for “offices”

Dining area = 35.25m2/5m2 NUFA = 74.6m2/46m2 Requires 7.04 (say 7) spaces Requires 1.62 (say 2) spaces 5 spaces

The development provides space for 4 vehicles (all stacked one behind the other) at the rear of the site, with access from Hillview Lane. This parking provision would be unsuitable for the proposed development, as stacked parking is unsatisfactory for a commercial development (where one customer’s vehicle would be blocking another customer’s vehicle), and also because the parking area would be subject to stormwater flows (as discussed below). The only alternative to the provision of on-site parking is the applicant’s payment of a Section 94 contribution in lieu. The current rate under Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan is $12678 per space ($63390 would be required as a contribution for a shortfall of 5 spaces). This could be imposed as a condition if Council decides to approve the DA. DCP 41 – Stormwater Management Council’s Development Engineers have advised that this development is unsatisfactory in terms of this DCP, with regard to an increase in the use of the land (section 7.7.4) and depth of stormwater flow in a car parking area (section 7.5). DCP 45A – Energy Smart Water Wise Conditions regarding ceiling/roof and wall insulation, minimum 3.5 star greenhouse score for new/replacement hot water systems, and water efficient fixtures could be imposed, if Council decides to approve the DA. 2. The likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts

on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality

Built Environment The development in itself would not have any impacts on the built environment, as it only involves a change of use of the existing building. Natural Environment Similarly, the development would have no impact on the natural environment.


ITEM 3 (Continued) Social and Economic Impacts The site’s affectation by overland stormwater flows means that it is unsuitable for developments which involve an intensification compared to the previous use, under the provisions of DCP 41 – Stormwater Management. Council has adopted this policy to ensure that stormwater inundation event would not constitute a hazard, or increase a hazard, to persons or property. The proposed development would involve an intensification compared to the previous landuse, and therefore approval of the development could be considered to constitute a hazard to persons or property. Approval of the development could therefore be said to have potential adverse social and economic impacts on this basis. 3. Suitability of the site for the development The site’s location within an overland stormwater flow path, and within an area identified as “Development Intensification Restricted” under DCP 41, means that it is unsuitable for the proposed development which involves an intensification compared to the previous land uses. 4. Any submissions received Notification/advertising was not required under Council’s Notification DCP. 5. The Public Interest In the circumstances of the case, approval of the DA would not be in the public interest. CONCLUSION: The proposed development has been assessed using the heads of consideration listed in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and is considered unsatisfactory. Refusal is recommended. RECOMMENDATION: That Local Development Application No. 198/2005 at 243 Rowe Street, Eastwood being LOT: C DP: 327357 be refused for the following reasons;

1. The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Development Control Plan

No 41 – Stormwater Management, in particular: • Section 7.7.4 regarding increase in the intensification of the use of the land • Section 7.5 regarding the depth of stormwater flow in a car parking area.


ITEM 3 (Continued) 2. The development’s car parking arrangements are unsatisfactory because of its

affectation by stormwater flows, and its stacked parking arrangement is unsatisfactory for a commercial development.

3. In the circumstances of the case, approval of the development would not be in the

public interest. Liz Coad Chris Young Manager Assessment Team Leader - Assessment


ITEM 3 (Continued) No submissions received

Development Application198/2005

COPYRIGHT

© 2005 City of Ryde.© 2005 Land and Property Information NSW.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

No part of this map may be reproduced without written permission.

City of RydeCivic Centre, 1 Devlin StreetRYDE NSW 2112

Locked Bag 2069NORTH RYDE NSW 1670

Tel: 9952 8222 Fax: 9952 8070

E-mail: [email protected]: www.ryde.nsw.gov.au

D68

212212

212

16

212

212212

164

212

233

2

211215217219221

223

225

23123 9

235237243245247249

267A

251253257

261263269

25559265267269

163A

159

161

2

2

162

169

163

67

165

81

166

RUTLED

168

170

G

ROWE ST

HILLVIEW LN

SCHOOLEASTWOOD PUBLIC

R 75180

RY

RD

SHAFTSBUR

Y R

GLEN

RESERVE

Eas twood F ire S ta ti

DP 752035

SP 18324

on

P 4320

DP 327630

DP 4231

DP 7464

DP 100267

5P 437267

DP 7464

DP 3

7

DP 207794

DP 321 583

DP 31 7157

DP 1889 2

DP 7464DP 653173

DP 7464

DP 910987

DP 859283

9

2735

7

DP 556320

DP

32 2217

DP 437267

4

B C

2

221

7

34

1

43

6

226

D

1

3321BA5

2

32

18

16

17

19

1

8

1

4430 329

3132

432

15

43

5

A

14

1

826

Scale: 1:1200 approx.

Date: 10/08/2005


ITEM 3 (Continued)


ITEM 4 20 ANZAC AVENUE DENISTONE. LOT: B DP: 951441. Local Development Application for a two storey dwelling LDA 141/2005. Applicant: Mr Joseph Nader.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report considers an application for construction of a two storey rendered brick dwelling with tile roof. The proposal complies with Council’s Development Control Plan 17A for Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings. Two submissions were received following notification of the proposal. The issues raised in the submissions included impacts on views (from the neighbouring dwelling to the north), and privacy impacts (upon the neighbouring villa development to the south). These issues do not warrant refusal of the DA, although the potential privacy impacts from the upper storey deck warrant conditions of consent for a 1.5m high privacy screen It is recommended that the application be approved, subject to a deferred commencement consent, which requires the submission of geotechnical information prior to the consent becoming operational. Reason for Referral to Development Committee: Requested by Councillor Campbell. SITE: (Refer to attached map.) Address : 20 Anzac Avenue, Denistone Site Area : 1077 m² Frontage 17.68m Depth 60.96m Topography and Vegetation : The site slopes considerably from front north-west corner

to rear south-east corner with a fall of approximately 7 metres. The property contains established gardens.


ITEM 4 (Continued) Existing Buildings : Two storey weatherboard dwelling with tile roof and

detached fibro cement building. PLANNING CONTROLS: Zoning : Residential 'A' Other : Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings Development

Control Plan No. 17A DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL SUMMARY: The application proposes the construction of a two storey rendered solid brick dwelling with tile roof. The lower ground floor contains a double garage, rumpus room, bedroom 4, laundry and bathroom. The ground floor contains a lounge, living room, kitchen, 3 bedrooms, study and bathroom. REFERRALS: Development Engineer: The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who has no objection to the proposal and has recommended approval subject to the issue of a deferred commencement consent, with the submission of a geotechnical report being required before the consent becomes operational [see conditions 1 (Part 1) and conditions 34-43 (Part 2)]. OFFICER’S ASSESSMENT: The assessment contained in this report is a summary of the matters deemed relevant to this development proposal and matters contained in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources' Guide to Section 79C – Potential Matters for Consideration. 1. Relevant Provisions of Environmental Planning Instruments etc: (a) Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance

(i) Zoning

The subject site is zoned Residential 2(a) under the provisions of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. The proposed use is permissible with the consent of Council.

(b) Statutory Requirements


ITEM 4 (Continued)

The development satisfies the statutory requirements of Clause 46(1) of the Ryde Planning Scheme Ordinance. This Clause requires that a dwelling house is not to be erected on an allotment of land unless the allotment satisfies the following:- 1. It has an area of not less than 580m² 2. It has frontage to a road of not less than 10m. 3. It has a width of not less than 15m at a distance of 7.5m from the

alignment of road.

The development complies with these requirements.

(c) Draft Environmental Planning Instruments These are no draft Environmental Planning Instruments applicable to the subject property. (d) The Provisions of Any Development Control Plans Dwelling House & Duplex Buildings Development Control Plan No. 17A. The proposal is in general compliance with the above Development Control Plan as illustrated by the development standards below: Council’s Code

Proposed

Compliance

Minimum Allotment Size

580m2 1077m2 Yes Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1 0.48:1 Yes Setbacks

Front: Existing Alignment 6.5m 6.7m Yes North Side 1.5m 1m & 1.5m Yes South Side 1.5m 1.5m Yes Height

Overall Height 9m Ceiling 7m

8.4m 6.6m

Yes Yes

Site Coverage

Within established building zone Within established building zone

Yes


ITEM 4 (Continued) Parking

2 parking spaces behind the building line

2 car garage Yes

2. Likely impacts of the development including environmental impacts o both

the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts the locality.

Built Environment The development has several issues relating to impacts in terms of the built environment, and these are discussed as follows: DCP Compliance The proposed development satisfies the numerical requirements of Council’s DCP 17A with particular regard to building setbacks, height, bulk and scale. The development will result in some overshadowing of the adjacent villa development to the south (20-22 Anzac Ave), however this is within the design guidelines of the DCP (being sunlight to at least 50% of the principal ground level private open space of adjacent properties not reduced to less than 2 hours between 9am and 3pm, and windows to north facing living areas to receive at least 3 hours of sun between 9am and 3pm over a portion of their surface). Impacts on Views The development will, however, impact on the existing view available to the adjacent dwelling at 18 Anzac Avenue due to an increase in height and length of the development. In this regard it is helpful to note the Land and Environment Court’s consideration of issues relating to views. In the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004 NSWLEC 140), the Court established the following planning principles with respect to this issue: The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment. The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.


ITEM 4 (Continued) Comment: The adjoining property has district land views, and so these are not as highly valued as water views would be. The adjoining property has no iconic views, although there are distant views of the Olympic site. The proposed development complies with Council’s requirements for height and established building zone, and therefore impact on views is inevitable given the orientation of the land relative to the adjoining property. The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic. Comment: The adjoining property enjoys views from both the dwelling (living areas) and to a lesser extent from the rear yard. The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating. Comment: The development would have a moderate impact on views from the adjoining property, however considering the type of views (land views) and the inevitable nature of the impact due to the orientation of the land (the subject land is downhill from the affected adjoining property), the extent of the impact is considered to be acceptable. The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable. Comment: The proposed development complies with all relevant requirements of the DCP regarding bulk and scale (ie height, setbacks, established building zone etc), and so it is considered that the development causing the impact is reasonable. The relevant planning controls in this locality do not restrict development to single storey.


ITEM 4 (Continued) The relevant planning controls in this locality do not restrict development to single storey. There is no precedent for Council to restrict construction to of a development that complies with DCP 17A so an adjoining property maintains land views. On balance, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of impacts on views from the adjoining property to the north. There is no precedent for Council to restrict construction of a development that complies with DCP 17A so an adjoining property maintains land views. Privacy Impacts In respect to privacy the application proposes the provision of a 2.5 metres wide first floor balcony across the rear of the dwelling and a 3.5 metres wide (11.6 m long) first floor balcony located 3 metres from the southern side boundary. It is proposed to require the provision of a 1.8 metres high privacy screen across the northern end of the rear balcony and a 1.5 metes high privacy screen for a length of 6 metres along the side balcony as a condition of consent to protect the privacy of adjoining premises (see condition 18 and 19). Natural Environment The proposed development will have no significant impacts on the natural environment. As mentioned previously, a deferred commencement consent is recommended, to require the submission of a geotechnical assessment report to address the issue of land slip. 3. Suitability of the site for the development The site has accommodated a dwelling for many years and is suitable for such use. Apart from the issue of land slip (which is proposed to be addressed via the submission of a geotechnical report prior to the consent becoming operational – see Condition No 1 Part 1), the land is not subject to any particular constraints which render it unsuitable for the proposed development. 4. Submissions from Public Authorities and in the Public Interest Not applicable to this application SUBMISSIONS: The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Notification. Notification of the proposal was for a period of 14 days ending 28 March 2005. During the notification period two submissions were received. The issues raised in the submissions were:-


ITEM 4 (Continued) 1. Owners

18 Anzac Avenue Denistone

a) The proposed development will obstruct existing views over Olympic site and Mountains

Comment These issues have been discussed previously in this report (see “Likely Impacts”).

b) Suggested reduction in roof grade and ceiling height

Comment A reduction in roof grade and ceiling height would only result in a slight reduction in the overall height of the development, and would therefore only be of minor benefit to reducing impacts of view loss. As discussed previously, the development fully complies with the height requirements in the DCP, and the impacts upon views are considered acceptable in the context of the development. In addition, this issue has been suggested to the applicant and he advises that these changes are unnecessary and would result in an unattractive structure (See letter of 24 June 2005 attached). c) Size of rear and side balconies are excessive and have an impact

on adjacent premises.

Comment The large rear and side balconies may impact on adjoining premises. To protect their privacy consent conditions will require the erection of privacy screens on the northern end of the rear balcony and for a 6 metres length of the side balcony (see conditions 18 and 19).

d) Use of lower level as a flat

Comment The architectural plans do not indicate the use of the lower floor as a flat. The owner has commented that they do not intend to use the lower ground floor as a flat. (See letter of 24 June 2005 attached)


ITEM 4 (Continued)

e) Rear deck and upper level bedroom will remove privacy of their rear deck and yard.

Comment The wall boundary setback on the northern side of the development is in accordance with the requirements of the DCP. Bedrooms are considered to be low use areas and therefore acceptable. A privacy screen will be erected at the northern end of the first floor balcony to protect their privacy (see conditions 18 and 19).

f) Loss of value of their property

Comment Subject to the development complying with the design requirements of Council’s adopted DCP for Dwelling Houses and Duplex Buildings. No empirical evidence has been submitted to support this claim.

g) The size and design of the building is considered excessive

Comment The development complies with the Development Control Plan design requirements for scale and size (eg FSR, height, etc).

h) Stormwater runoff will impact on adjacent development

Comment Stormwater drainage from the development will be by way of on-site disposal, which has been approved by Council Development Engineers.

i) Building is in excess of Council’s Floor Space Ratio

Comment The maximum area of the new dwelling has been calculated at 0.48:1 which is under the Development Control Plan requirements of 0.5:1.

i) Separation between new dwelling and adjoining sites does not

allow for sunlight penetration.

Comment Side setback of proposed development are in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan requirements and more than adequate for sunlight penetration and provision of screen planting.


ITEM 4 (Continued)

The owner was interviewed on 2 May 2005 and contents of his submission discussed. A copy of the submission and a copy of correspondence received from the applicant are CIRCULATED UNDER SEPARATE COVER for Council information.

2. Owner

Villa No. 2, 22 – 26 Anzac Avenue Denistone

Concern is raised that the proposed development will impact on the privacy of his yard and living area.

Comment Due to the difference in floor levels of approximately 4 metres between the side balcony level of the new development and the villa unit floor level the position of the side balcony will impact on the amenity of the villa unit. The degree of viewing intrusion, however, as offset by the existing presence of a 1.8 metres high metal dividing fence on the property boundary and a further 1.8 metres high metal fence located on the Villa site 1 metre from the side boundary which provides a 1 metre wide passageway for removal of garbage. To protect the privacy of the adjoining villa development, a condition will be included in the consent to provide a 1.5 metre high privacy screen on the side balcony for a length of 6 metres (condition 18 and 19). Provision of the screen has been verbally accepted by the applicant.

CONCLUSION: The proposed development has been assessed using the heads of consideration listed in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and has been found to be satisfactory. Although the development would impact on the views from the adjoining property to the north, this aspect of the development is considered acceptable and inevitable given the orientation of the land relative to those views, and also given that the development complies with the requirements of DCP 17A. The development raises concerns about privacy impacts on the villa development to the south, and this will be addressed via conditions requiring screening to the deck which overlooks this adjoining development (see conditions 18 and 19). RECOMMENDATION: (a) That Local Development Application No. 141/2005 to construct a two storey

rendered brick dwelling with tile roof at 20 Anzac Avenue, Denistone be approved as a Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.


ITEM 4 (Continued) This consent does not become operative until the matters referred to in Part 1 have been submitted to and approved by Council and Council has notified you in writing that the consent has become operative. This information is to be submitted within 6 months of the date of issue of the consent. Part 1 – Conditions Relating to a Deferred Commencement Consent pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The following conditions are Deferred Commencement conditions imposed pursuant to section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. 1. This consent shall not operate until a geotechnical report has been submitted to

and approved by Council concerning the footings, drainage and associated site slope stability. The report is to determine that the absorption system will not have any adverse impact on the site slope stability. The associated absorption system is to comply with Development Control Plan 41 concerning trench position, volume and the completed absorption trench calculation sheet.

Part 2 – General Conditions of Consent The following requirements shall apply upon satisfactory completion of the requirements outlined in Part 1 of this consent (above). 1. Development is to be carried out in accordance with the Plans No. 1440/D1B,

D2B, 05/1, 05/2, Hydraulic Plan 1 dated 12/01/05 and Landscape Plan L01/1 – R9901 dated 20/12/04 and support information submitted to Council.

2. All building works are required to be carried out in accordance with the

provisions of the Building Code of Australia. 3. The occasions on which building work must be inspected are:

i) at the commencement of the building work ii) after excavation for, and prior to the placement of, any footings iii) prior to pouring any in-situ reinforced concrete building element iv) prior to covering of the framework for any floor, wall, roof or other building

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

certificate being issued in relation to the building.

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant standards of construction is to be obtained prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction and copies of the documentary evidence are to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority and be made available to Council officers upon request.


ITEM 4 (Continued)

Prior to occupation of the building, an occupation certificate must be obtained. Prior to the issue of the occupation certificate, the mandatory inspections must be carried out.

4. In addition to the abovestated inspections, Council or an accredited certifier is

required to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the following measures at each stage of construction, to ensure compliance with the approval and Council’s Development Control Plan 42 for “Construction Activities”:

i) Sediment control measures ii) Tree Preservation and protection measures iii) Security fencing iv) Materials or waste containers upon the footway or road. v) PCA and principal contractor (the coordinator of the building work)

signage and site toilets 5. In issuing this approval, Council has relied on the information provided by you

about the siting of the building/structure on the allotment. If this information is incorrect, it is your responsibility to correct the errors. It may be advisable to undertake a land survey prior to commencing any works.

6. A certificate from a suitably qualified person is to be submitted to the Principal

Certifying Authority ( and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of Termite Protection has been provided in accordance with Part 3.1.3 of the Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3660.1.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that the method of waterproofing wet areas has been provided in accordance with Part 3.8.1 of the Building Code of Australia and the requirements of the Australian Standard 3740 prior to wall tiling.


Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) that Fire and Smoke Alarms have been provided in accordance with Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code. Location details are to be submitted and approved by Council or an accredited certifier prior to the release of the Construction Certificate.

9. A Registered Surveyors check survey certificate, or compliance certificate, is to

be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stages:

a) Prior to construction of each floor level showing the area of the land,

proposed building and the boundary setbacks and verifying that the proposed building is being constructed to the approved levels


ITEM 4 (Continued)

b) On completion of the proposed building showing the area of the land, completed building and the boundary setbacks

10. All excavated material must be removed from the site. No fill is to be placed

above the natural ground level. 11. The applicant is to submit to and have approved by Council or an accredited

certifier engineers details for all concrete work and structural steelwork prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

12. Roofwater to be disposed of to the approved/existing stormwater drainage

system. 13. Perimeter of slabs to be provided with a drop-edge beam so as to provide face

brickwork from the natural ground level. 14. Treads, risers and balustrades to comply with the Building Code of Australia

Part 3.9.1 and Part 3.9.2. Balustrading is to be a minimum 1.0 metres high and any openings are not to exceed 125mm.

15. All timber framing is to comply with Part 3.4.3 – Timber Framing of the Building

Code of Australia, 1996. 16. Glass doors and fixed panels so located in relation to other parts of the building

as to be capable of being mistaken as a doorway of unimpeded path or travel shall be provided with a Grade “A” Safety Glazing in accordance with AS 2008, Safety Glazing Materials for use in buildings (Human Impact Consideration). All other glazing shall be installed in accordance with Table 1A Appendix “A” of AS 1288 Glass Installation Code.

Panels and doors in paths of travel shall be provided with a midrail, motifs or other approved permanent means of making the panels clearly distinguishable. Safety glass installations that are not carrying permanent safety glass markings in accordance with AS 2208, Safety Glazing Materials for Use in Buildings, shall be either legibly labeled, or a certificate furnished to Council or an accredited certifier and in each case the following information shall be given:

i) Distributor’s or installer’s name. ii) Details of the original panel from which the piece was cut. The original sheet bore permanent “safety glass” markings in accordance with AS 22.08.

17. The doors to the sanitary compartments must be open outwards, slide or be

readily removable from the outside of the compartment unless there is clear space of at least 1.2m between the closest pan and the nearest part of the doorway (3.8.3.3 of the Building Code of Australia).


ITEM 4 (Continued) 18. A suitable privacy screen to a height of 1.8 metres shall be provided to the

northern end of the rear first floor balcony. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

19. A suitable privacy screen to a height of 1.5 metres shall be provided to the

southern side first floor balcony for a length of 6 metres commencing at the kitchen wall. Details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

20. A security deposit is to be paid to Council (Public Facilities and Services Group)

being a deposit of $1250 as well as the infrastructure inspection fee in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Management Plan (scheduled fees).

21. Enforcement levy is to be paid to Council on lodgement of the Construction

Certificate application in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Management Plan (scheduled fees).

22. Documentary evidence of compliance with Conditions 20 to the satisfaction of

Council or an accredited certifier is to be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

23. Documentary evidence of payment of the Long Service Levy under Section 34

of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986 is to be received prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate.

24. Sydney Water

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

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.

25. The applicant is to apply to Council, pay the required fee, and have issued

street alignment levels by Council prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

26. Security fencing shall be provided around the perimeter of the

building/demolition site and precautionary measures taken to prevent unauthorized entries of the site at all times during demolition and construction.

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


ITEM 4 (Continued) 27. Signage is to be provided on the site as follows:

a) During the entire construction phase signage shall be fixed on site identifying the PCA and principal contractor (the coordinator of the building work), and providing phone numbers.

28. Site toilets shall be provided in accordance with the WorkCover Code of

Practice entitled “Amenities for Construction Work”. 29. All demolition and all construction and associated work is to be restricted to

between the hours of 7.00am and 7.00pm Monday to Friday (other than public holidays) and between 8.00am and 4.00pm on Saturday. No work is to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays.

30. No spoil, stockpiles, building or demolition material is to be placed on any public

road, footpath, park or Council owned land. 31. Adequate precautions must be taken to control the emission of dust from the

site during demolition and construction work. These precautions could include minimizing soil disturbance, use of water sprays, erecting screens and not carrying out dusty work during windy conditions.

32. All work involving asbestos products and materials, including asbestos-cement

sheeting (i.e. fibro) must be carried out in accordance with the guidelines for asbestos work published by WorkCover New South Wales.

33. Only unpolluted water is to be discharged to Council’s stormwater drainage

system. 34. The L10 noise level measured for a period of not less than 15 minutes while

demolition and construction work is in progress must not exceed the background noise level by more than 20 dB(A) at the nearest affected residential premises.

General Engineering Conditions 35. Design and Construction Standards. All engineering plans and work shall be

carried out in accordance with the requirements as outlined within Council’s publication Environmental Standards Development Criteria and relevant Development Control Plans except as amended by other conditions.

36. Service Alterations. All mains, services, poles, etc., which require alteration

shall be altered at the applicant’s expense. 37. Restoration. Public areas must be maintained in a safe condition at all times.

Restoration of disturbed road and footway areas for the purpose of connection to public utilities will be carried out by Council following submission of a permit application and payment of appropriate fees. Repairs of damage to any public


ITEM 4 (Continued)

stormwater drainage facility will be carried out by Council following receipt of payment.

38. Engineering Compliance Certificates. Engineering Compliance Certificates

must be obtained for the following works at the specified stage (If Council is appointed the PCA then the appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council) and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate:

• Prior to backfilling of pipelines in which Council has an interest. • Prior to backfilling of drainage connections to pipelines or channels in which

Council has an interest. • Prior to casting of pits and other concrete structures in which Council has an

interest including kerb & gutter, accessways, aprons, pathways, vehicular crossings, dish crossings and pathway steps.

NOTE: Council has an interest in all pipelines which drain public reserves and public road reserves, and in all structures located within public road reserves.

All Engineering Compliance certificates are to contain the following declarations:

(a) This certificate is supplied in relation to <<address of property>>. (b) <<name of engineer and company >> have been responsible for the

supervision of all the work nominated in (a) above. (c) I have carried out all tests and inspections necessary to declare that the

work nominated in (a) above has been carried out in accordance with the approved plans, specifications, and the conditions of the development consent.

(d) I have kept a signed record of all inspections and tests undertaken during the works, and can supply the Principal Certifying Authority [PCA] with a copy of such records and test results if and when required.

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior To Construction Certificate 39. On-site Stormwater Disposal. Stormwater runoff from the impervious areas as

indicated shall be collected and piped by gravity flow to an absorption trench system to Council’s requirements. The absorption trench storage volume shall be designed in accordance with Council’s Stormwater Management Development Control Plan “DCP 41”. Earthworks are to be detailed to demonstrate that the ground downstream of the trenches will be permeable to allow seepage from the trenches. A level spreader shall be placed downstream of the trenches to prevent erosion and an adverse impact on downstream properties. The absorption trench is to be located not more than 3m from the rear of the dwelling.


ITEM 4 (Continued) 40. Drainage Plans. The impervious area as indicated on plan 11/01/05 by B.K.

Batshon is to be connected into the piped drainage system to discharge into the existing drainage system in accordance with Council's Development Control Plan 41.

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Commencement of Construction 41. Sediment and Erosion Control. The applicant shall install appropriate sediment

control devices in accordance with an approved plan prior to any earthworks being carried out on the site. These devices shall be maintained during the construction period and replaced where considered necessary. Suitable erosion control management procedures shall be practiced. This condition is imposed in order to protect downstream properties, Council's drainage system and natural watercourses from sediment build-up transferred by stormwater runoff from the site.

42. Compliance Certificate. A Compliance Certificate must be obtained

confirming that the constructed erosion and sediment control measures comply with the construction plan and Ryde City Council’s Development Control Plan for Construction Activities “DCP 42”

Engineering Conditions to be complied with Prior to Occupation Certificate 43. Compliance Certificates – Engineering. Compliance Certificates must be

obtained for the following (If Council is appointed the Principal Certifying Authority [PCA] then the appropriate inspection fee is to be paid to Council) and submitted to the PCA: • Confirming that the site drainage system servicing the development

complies with the construction plan requirements and Ryde City Council's Stormwater Management Development Control Plan “DCP 41

44. Drainage Construction. The stormwater drainage on the site is to be

constructed generally in accordance with plan 11/01/05 prepared by B. K. Batshon and the geotechnical report submitted for the construction certificate application.

ADVISORY CONDITIONS 1. Compliance with Building Code of Australia

1) All building work ( other than work relating to the temporary building ) must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia ( as in force on the date of the application for the relevant construction certificate or complying development certificate was made)


ITEM 4 (Continued)

2) This clause does not apply to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000,subject to any terms of any condition or requirement referred to in Clause 187(6) or 188(4).

2. Residential Building Work

1) Building work that involves 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:

a) in the case of work to be done under the Act:

i) has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor licence number, and

ii) is satisfied that the licensee had complied with the requirements of Part 6 of the Act; or

b) in the case of work to be done by any other person: i) has been informed in writing of the person's name and

owner-builder permit number; or ii) has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the

land, that states that the reasonable market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work is less than the amount prescribed for the purposes of the definition of “owner builder work” in Section 29 of that Act, and is given appropriate information and declarations under paragraphs (a) and (b) whenever arrangements for the doing of work are changed in such a manner as to render out of date any information or declaration previously given under either of those paragraphs.

2) A certificate purporting to be used by an approved insurer under Part 6 of

the Home Building Act 1989 that states that a person is the holder of an insurance policy issued for the purposes of that Part is, for the purpose of this clause, sufficient evidence that the person has complied with the requirements of that Part.

3. Excavations and backfilling

1) All excavations and backfill associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely and in accordance with appropriate professional standards.

2) All excavations associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property.

4. Retaining walls and drainage

If the soil conditions require it:


ITEM 4 (Continued)

a) retaining walls associated with the erection or demolition of a building or other approved methods of preventing movement of the soil must be provided, and

b) adequate provision must be made for drainage 5. Prior to commencing any construction works, the following provisions of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Act, 1997 are to be complied with:

(i) A Construction Certificate is to be obtained in accordance with Section

81A (2)(a) of the Act. (ii) A Principal Certifying Authority is to be appointed and Council is to be

notified of the appointment in accordance with Section 81A (2)(b) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

(iii) Council is to be notified at least two (2) days prior to the intention to commence building works, in accordance with Section 81A (2)(c) of the Act and Form 7 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations.

6. The applicant may apply to the Council or an accredited certifier for the issuing

of a Construction Certificate and to Council or an accredited certifier to monitor compliance with the approval and issue any relevant documentary evidence or certificate/s.

Council Officers can provide these services and further information can be obtained from Council by telephoning 9952 8222 (Customer Service).

7. City of Ryde will not issue a Construction Certificate without evidence of Home

Owners Warranty / Owner Builder’s Permit being submitted to Council. 8. Energy Australia

Underground and overhead electric cables may exist in this area. In your own interest and for safety, telephone Energy Australia on 13 1525 before excavating or erecting structures.

9. Telephone Installations

Conduits with draw in wires should be laid in concrete floors to the points where telephone services are required. Consult the local Telecommunications Sales Office for advice.


ITEM 4 (Continued) (b) That the persons who made submissions be advised of the decision. Liz Coad Richard Curtis Manager Assessment Snr Assessment Officer


ITEM 4 (Continued)

Indicates submissions received


ITEM 4 (Continued)

development committee agenda no. 14/05, 16 august 2005 · 2016-02-02 · development committee...

Documents