· information about procedures for the ordinary meeting of council open question time open...

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

ORDINARY MEETING

AGENDA

MEETING DATE: 16 March 2010

INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

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

MOSMAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS SEATING 2009-2010 MAYORAL TERM

Mosman Bay Ward

Manager

Governance / Finance

Minutes

Secretary

General Manager

Mayor

Cr Anne Connon

DirectorEnvironment

and Planning

ManagerDevelopment

Services

Director Corporate Services

DirectorCommunity

Development

Balmoral Ward

Cr Tom Sherlock Cr Libby Moline

Cr Simon Menzies

Cr Dom Lopez OAM

Cr Jim Reid

Middle Harbour Ward

Cr Denise Wilton

Cr Warren Yates

Cr Belinda Halloran

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

2. WELCOME TO VISITORS

3. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

5. DISCLOSURES OF NON-PECUNIARY INTEREST

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Confirmation of the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 2 March 2010

7. MAYORAL MINUTES

8. ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORTS

EP/35 33 and 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue................................................... 1 EP/36 37 Rangers Avenue ............................................................................................ 68 EP/37 674 Military Road (Brothel) ................................................................................. 93 EP/38 16 Boyle Street.................................................................................................. 105 EP/39 5 Raglan Street ................................................................................................. 122 EP/40 18/24A Musgrave Street ................................................................................... 144 EP/41 134 Cowles Road.............................................................................................. 166 EP/42 Tender for Balmoral Oval Contamination Capping and Creek Works............... 187 EP/43 SEPP 1 Variations............................................................................................. 189 EP/44 Development Applications................................................................................. 190 EP/45 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses.................................................. 192

9. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

10. RESCISSION MOTIONS

RM/1 Rescission Motion EP/31 Bus Layover for Metrobus Route 30 ........................ 196 RM/2 Rescission Motion CS/13 Outdoor Dining Approvals........................................ 197

Report - Council Meeting - 16 March 2010

Page 1

EP/35 33 and 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.103.1

PROPOSAL: Boundary adjustment between 33, 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue and the re-subdivision of 2 Harnett Avenue to create three lots. Demolition of existing dwelling and garage at 2 Harnett Avenue and construction of three new dwellings, a driveway, landscaping and bank stabilisation

REPORTING OFFICER: Sarah Winnacott, Executive Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 20 April 2009 (Downtime 141 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Deferred Commencement Consent with conditions Can this item be resolved by the Committee of the Whole: Yes

LOCALITY MAP

7078

D

8

335

DP 250

9

27 7

DP 308120

DP 1050211

SP 15997

DP 860782

DP 9373

SP 38325

SP 77365

SP 58956

SP

SP 14959

B

9

ADP 344132

SP 4763

SP 4238

SP 54875DP 375297

SP 80761

1

DP 1905691

26

2425

1DP 925551 DP 925552

DP 455960

35DP 4417

DP 1130113

1

B35

31A

D P440016

D P584039

DP

913

012

1

12

1

DP 232739

SP 18340

DP 1098197

2

BA

55

3

D P439082

SP 36859

2

DP 1070157

9

DP

263

8

D

2

52 651

17

2D

P60

8308

DP

666

710

DP 2509

DP

934

213

DP

940

592

S

C

DP

937

472

2 21

A

22

12

23

DP

176

809

DP 303084

1

1

DP

104

0165

DP 723521

DP 2638

C

12

DP

112

2992

2

11

15

1

DP 948064

1 4 3 12

DP

633

167

141

DP 309718

2 4

1 3

8

2

6

4

3

5

4

2

4

10

8

6

4A

33

9

48

75

1A

31

2

2

1

35

46

3234

3638

4042

44

20 22

31

19

18

2

15

12

13

14 16

11

2

11

19

4

1 17

4

2123

2527

29

RD

OSW

ALD

ST

PARK

ST

RO

YA

LIS

T


Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal comprises boundary adjustment between 33, 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue and the re-subdivision of 2 Harnett Avenue to create three lots. Demolition of existing dwelling and garage at 2 Harnett Avenue and construction of three new dwellings, a driveway, landscaping and bank stabilisation is also proposed. Concern has been raised by a number of residents in relation to the appropriateness of the proposed development, particularly given the sensitive environmental characteristics of the site and access from Harnett Avenue. The proposed subdivision complies with the minimum lot size development standard. The new dwelling houses do not comply with the maximum building height, wall height and number of storeys development standards. They do comply with the maximum floorspace ratio development standard and landscaped area requirement. This assessment has found that despite non-compliance with a number of Council’s requirements, the proposed development is acceptable as it will have a reasonable impact on the public domain and adjoining properties. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to a deferred commencement consent and the conditions included in the recommendation. UPDATE TO REPORT Council considered EP/13 at the meeting of 16 February 2010 and resolved the matter be deferred for further consideration of: 1. Looking at tree 31and its retention. 2. Elevated Driveway – erection of templates to show height and location and consideration of

alternative locations. 3. Proximity to 4 Harnett Avenue of house No 1 and the relationship to house No 2 which is on

a zero lot line. 4. The means by which materials delivered on large trucks would be managed particularly in

Harnett Avenue. In response to Council's resolution, the applicant has provided the following documentation:

Document Date Letter from Longitude Planning Pty Ltd 25 February 2010 Letter from Marchese + Partners International 22 February 2010 Letter from Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd 23 February 2010 Letter from Footprint Green Pty Ltd 24 February 2010 Letter from Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd 24 February 2010 Sketch Drawings of Dwelling No. 1 SK010, SK011, SK012, SK013 and elevational shadow diagrams demonstrating shadow impact of 4 Harnett Avenue

Undated

Each of the matters are discussed separately below: 1. Looking at tree 31and its retention.

The Arborist and Geotechnical Engineer revisited the site on 22 February 2010. The Geotechnical Engineer has identified that:


Page 3

“The roots of the tree would be growing into joints, bedding planes and other weak zones within the sandstone cliff causing the instability issues detailed within our previous letter. Essentially the tree has outgrown the landscape in which it is situated and the instability risks will increase over time as the tree continues to grow. We consider from a geotechnical perspective that there are no reasonable measures that could be undertaken to retain the tree and reduce the instability risks to be within acceptable levels. The tree will need to be removed in order to eliminate the geotechnical hazards caused by the tree”.

In summary, the Arborist has identified that:

Whilst recognising the tree provides a contribution to the landscape, the tree is considered to be an environmental pest species and Camphor Laurels are a declared noxious weed in many northern Sydney local government areas. The species is recognised as a pest species in Mosman and Camphor Laurels under 10m in height are exempt from protection under the Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

The applicant’s Town Planner has identified that: “In summary, Tree 31 has outgrown the landscape in which it is situated and the instability risks will increase over time as the tree continues to grow. Regardless of the development of the site, Tree 31 will need to be removed because of the geotechnical hazards caused by the tree and the potential danger to the residents of the existing dwelling house. To compensate for the loss of the Camphor Laurel tree, the applicant has previously agreed to the retention of Tree 25 a Liquid Amber tree. The siting and design of Dwellings 2 and 3 were modified to accommodate this tree. In addition Tree 32 a semi mature Camphor Laurel tree located at the rear of 33 Royalist Road is proposed to be retained. Other trees previously indicated for removal in the Vegetation Management Plan are also proposed to be retained including Trees 3 and 4 Camphor Laurels near the existing garage, Tree 36, 45 and 49 Jacarandas near Dwelling 3, Trees 46, 51 and 52 Kentia Palms and Tree 55 a Canary Island date palm. A plan has been provided identifying the additional trees to be retained. The landscaped plan shows that replacement planting in the location of Tree 31 includes two Angophora costata trees (Sydney Red gums)”.

It is recommended that deferred commencement condition ‘h’ be amended to required the amendment of the landscape plans to show the retention of the trees identified by the applicant. This requirement is included in the attached recommendation.

2. Elevated Driveway – erection of templates to show height and location and consideration of alternative locations.

The applicant’s Town Planner has identified that profiles of the driveway will be provided for the Councillor site inspection. The architect has identified that the design and location of the driveway has been conceived following consideration of the following criteria: (a) The existing driveway entry point is from Harnett Avenue and this is considered to

be the only viable entry point available to the site; (b) The driveway has been designed to provide a 5.0 metre riparian zone to the creek;


Page 4

(c) It was essential to retain the existing Angophora tree close to the entry, locating the driveway any higher (closer to Tree 2) would severely affect the root system. The design includes steel grated sections around the Angophora tree to allow for water penetration;

(d) The elevation and cantilevered pier support system “touches the ground lightly” minimising any impact on the creek bank and allows vegetation to grow beneath the structure and screening will be provided on the eastern edge of the driveway; and

(e) The driveway and riparian zone will be the first stage of construction allowing the time for established growth during the construction of the dwellings.

3. Proximity to 4 Harnett Avenue of house No 1 and the relationship to house No 2 which is on

a zero lot line.

The applicant’s Town Planner has advised that:

“The zero setback to the south side of Dwelling 2 was agreed to in consultation with Council officers for the primary purpose of increasing landscaping particularly in front of the dwelling by moving the driveway and access to the garages to the side of Dwelling 1 and 2. To move Dwelling 2 to the north away from the boundary as well as potentially moving Dwelling 1 to the north would involve a redesign of both dwellings and a change to the configuration and gradient of the individual driveways to achieve the required turning circles and to accommodate the driveway width for vehicles and for pedestrian access. Moving the development further to the north would potentially encroach on the riparian corridor”.

The applicant has provided sketch drawings which identify amendments to Dwelling 1 which will provide additional solar access to the north facing windows of the adjoining property 4 Harnett Avenue. The amendments involve the second and third levels of Dwelling 1 being shifted 1.0 metre towards the rear and the floor plate of first floor level being extended 1.0 metre toward the rear. The extension to the floor plate at this level results in an increase in gross floor area of approximately 6.5 square metres. The applicant has advised this is necessary to support the two levels above. The applicant has provided elevation shadow diagrams at half hourly intervals from 9am to 3pm which demonstrate the impact of overshadowing from the current proposal and the stepped back option on the northern elevation of 4 Harnett Avenue. For clarification, the three living room windows identified within the assessment include the highlight window and the window directly to its west at the lower level and the western most window at the mid level which is a dining room/living room window. Other windows service bedrooms or utility rooms. The amendments result in one hour of additional sunlight to the highlight window at the lower level and a half hour of additional sunlight to the dining room/living room window at the mid level. These windows will receive in excess of the minimum of two hours of sunlight on 21 June, compliant with the MRDCP minimum requirement. The amendments result in a half hour of additional sunlight to the other living room window at the lower level. This window will receive a total of approximately one hour of sunlight, non-compliant with the MRDCP minimum requirement. The proposed stepping back of the upper two levels offered up by the applicant does result in an improved solar access impact on the adjoining property 4 Harnett Avenue. It is recommended that an additional deferred commencement condition be included requiring


Page 5

amended plans consistent with the sketches provided. This condition is included in the attached recommendation.

4. The means by which materials delivered on large trucks would be managed particularly in

Harnett Avenue.

The applicant has provided a letter from the Traffic Consultant which identifies that the key features of the Construction Traffic Management Plan will be:

(a) the vehicular access driveway is to be constructed first, using small machinery, to facilitate vehicular access to the site for construction vehicles;

(b) steel reinforcing for the proposed access driveway will be delivered using a small to medium sized truck. All reinforcing steel will be unloaded by hand and stored on-site prior to construction of the proposed driveway;

(c) a turning area will be provided on-site to enable all vehicles to approach and depart the site whilst travelling in a forward direction at all times;

(d) all materials shall be stored on site; (e) an authorised traffic controller will regulate the movement of trucks to and from

the site during the demolition and excavation phases of the project; (f) in the event that a truck is required to reverse along Harnett Avenue the

reversing truck will be supervised at all times by the traffic controllers; (g) the authorised traffic controller will give priority to pedestrian and local resident

vehicle movements at all times; (h) construction traffic will not be permitted to park in Harnett Avenue under any

circumstances; (i) there will not be any trucks queuing or waiting in Harnett Avenue at any time;

and (j) trucks will be called to the site by the Site Supervisor using two-way radio or

mobile phone.

Council’s Manager Assets and Services has reviewed the Construction Traffic Management Plan information and has advised that the key features identified appear reasonable and that the Construction Traffic Management Plan should be approved by the Traffic Committee prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate as required by recommended condition of consent No. 25.

REPORT

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The Site The subject site comprises three (3) allotments which are known as 33 Royalist Road, 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue. These allotments have a combined area of approximately 3202 square metres. 33 and 35 Royalist Road are irregularly shaped allotments which have frontage to and are accessed from Royalist Road. Both of these allotments are developed with a dwelling house located on the high part of the allotments close to Royalist Road. To the east of the dwelling houses a cliff up to 4 metres in height exists. The land beneath the cliff is heavily vegetated and undeveloped apart from some terracing and falls to the top of the creek bank at an average gradient of 45%.


Page 6

2 Harnett Avenue is an irregularly shaped allotment which has frontage to both Royalist Road (via an access handle) and Harnett Avenue. The access handle is undeveloped. Access to this property is from Harnett Avenue. This allotment is developed with a dwelling house which is located on the high part of the allotment and a detached garage located near the Harnett Avenue frontage. The lower portion of the site comprises landscaped terraces and pathways and is heavily vegetated. This allotment (excluding access handle) falls to the top of the creek bank approximately 17 metres at an average gradient of 38%. An open creek runs along the north eastern side of the site. The creek flows in a south easterly direction to Reid Park where it then flows via a pipe and open channel to Mosman Bay. Surrounding Development The site is located in an area that is predominately residential in character and has been identified for medium density housing given its proximity to Mosman Wharf. The site is located in the Mosman Bay townscape which is described at clause 6.6 of Mosman Residential DCP as follows:

“This townscape area is a steeply sloping valley surrounding Mosman Bay. The topography creates an enclosed and intimate feeling, offering occasional vistas and views to Mosman Bay and Sydney Harbour. Reid Park at the waterfront is a central element with access to the foreshore. Mosman Wharf is a ferry terminal and transport focus for the area.”

The site shares a common boundary on its north eastern side with two multiple dwelling developments (1 and 2 Park Avenue). 1 Park Avenue contains 3 units and 2 Park Avenue contains 4 units. The creek is also located on these properties. The site shares a common boundary on its southern side with two developments, 31 Royalist Road and 4 Harnett Avenue. 31 Royalist Road containing 4 units and 4 Harnett Avenue was approved as an attached dual occupancy. Development to the west of the site in Royalist Road comprises a mixture of dwelling houses and multiple dwelling developments. The site adjoins Council owned land to the north which is zoned 6(a) Public Recreation under the provisions of MLEP 1998. The site adjoins an unformed section of road to the south east which is zoned 6(a) Public Recreation under the provisions of MLEP 1998. Reid Park is located on the other side of the unformed section of road. Hazards and Policy Affectations The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip Potential Bushfire hazard Yes Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes


Page 7

Wetlands No 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The development history of the site has been researched. Each of the three allotments have been the subject of a number of applications in the past the detail of which are not directly relevant to the subject development application, with the exception of the following:

As part of DA 131/89 development consent was granted for a boundary adjustment between 2 Harnett Avenue, 33 and 35 Royalist Road into three new lots of 1517 square metres, 700 square metres and 767 square metres. Despite this boundary adjustment having been approved, the subdivision was not registered with Land Titles. This consent has now lapsed.

As part of DA90/160 development consent was granted for a boundary adjustment between

2 Harnett Avenue and 33 Royalist Road resulting in 2 Harnett Avenue having an area of 1263 square metres and 33 Royalist Road having an area of 700 square metres. Despite this boundary adjustment having been approved, the subdivision was not registered with Land Titles. This consent has now lapsed.

As part of DA90/321 development consent was granted for a three dwelling multiple

dwelling development at 2 Harnett Avenue. This development contained a driveway in a similar location to that proposed as part of the subject application and two of the three dwellings were attached. This development relied on the boundary adjustment consented to as part of DA90/160. The works approved were not undertaken and this consent has now lapsed.

As part of BA43/96 development consent was granted for construction of a driveway,

garage, swimming pool and terrace at 2 Harnett Avenue. This development contained a driveway in a similar location to that proposed as part of the subject application. The works approved were not undertaken and this consent has now lapsed.

2.2 BACKGROUND OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The development application was lodged on 20 April 2009. The application was notified between 29 April 2009 and 14 May 2009. Submissions were received from or on behalf of twenty four (24) properties. Following a preliminary assessment of the development application, on 19 June 2009 Council wrote to the applicant raising issues with the development. The applicant requested an extension of time to address the matters raised. Following the submission of amended plans, the application was notified between 28 August 2009 and 14 September 2009 and again between 15 September 2009 and 29 September 2009. Submissions were received from or on behalf of fifteen (15) properties. On 29 September 2009 Council wrote to the applicant raising further issues with the development. A response to this letter has now been received. The amended plans are the subject of this assessment.


Page 8

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of:

Boundary adjustment between 33 Royalist Road, 35 Royalist Road and 2 Harnett Avenue. The boundary adjustment will result in the following allotment sizes:

Existing Area Proposed Area 33 Royalist Road 1028.5m2 551m2 35 Royalist Road 1241.4m2 836m2 2 Harnett Avenue 932.8m2 1815m2

Demolition of the existing dwelling and garage at 2 Harnett Avenue.

Torrens title subdivision of 2 Harnett Avenue to create three allotments, which are each

proposed to have the following allotment size:

Lot 1 644m2 Lot 2 510m2 Lot 3 661m2

Access to each of the allotments is proposed via a right of carriageway. Easements for services are also proposed. An easement for drainage 1.0m wide is also proposed to the benefit of 33 and 35 Royalist Road over proposed Lot 3.

An elevated driveway is proposed within the right of carriageway to access each of the allotments from Harnett Avenue.

Construction of a dwelling house on each of the new allotments. The new dwellings are

proposed to contain the following:

Lot 1 Ground Floor Level Double garage, 2 storage rooms, cellar, lift, stairs and entry First Floor Level Living room, dining room, siting room, kitchen, laundry, lift,

stairs, WC and 2 terraces Second Floor Level 3 bedrooms, study, bathroom, lift, stairs, storage and

balcony Third Floor Level Bedroom, ensuite, WIR, lift, stairs and terrace

Lot 2 Ground Floor Level Double garage, storage room, cellar, lift, stairs and entry First Floor Level Living room, dining room, kitchen, siting room, laundry, lift,

stairs, storage, WC and balcony Second Floor Level 3 bedrooms, study, 2 bathrooms, lift, stairs and balcony Third Floor Level Bedroom, ensuite, WIR, lift, stairs and terrace

Lot 3 Ground Floor Level Double garage, storage room, cellar, lift, stairs and entry First Floor Level Living room, dining room, kitchen, rumpus room, laundry,

WC, lift, stairs, storage and balcony Second Floor Level 4 bedrooms, WIR, 2 bathrooms, lift, stairs, terrace and

balcony


Page 9

Landscaping and rehabilitation of the creek is also proposed. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE Lot 1 / Dwelling 1 LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 2(b) Residential

Site Area 300m2 644m2 Yes

Building Height 8.5m 11.29m (+32.8%) No (SEPP 1)

Wall Height 7.2m 11.29m (+56.8%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 4 storeys (+100%) No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area 295m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.55 : 1 0.46 : 1 Yes

Landscaped Area 237.5m2 356m2 Yes

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

DCP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Setbacks of dwelling to existing site boundaries

Refer to section 5.3.1 for discussion of the proposed setbacks


Ground floor - south

- west

- east/creek

1.5m

12.7m

15m


Page 10


First floor - south

- west

- east/creek

1.5m

5.5m

15m

Second floor - south

- west

- east/creek

1.5m

6.9m

15m

Third floor - south

- west

- east/creek

3.0m

6.9m

17m

Parking On merit 2 spaces Yes

Lot 2 / Dwelling 2 LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE








Landscaped Area 176m2 239m2 Yes






Ground floor - west

- east/creek

5m

11m

First floor - west

- east/creek

1.5m

10.5m

Second floor - west

- east/creek

1.5m

10.5m

Third floor - west

- east/creek

3m

13.7m



Page 11

Lot 3 / Dwelling 3 LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE








Landscaped Area 219m2 438m2 Yes






Ground floor - north

- west

- east/creek

17.5m

1.5m

7.0m

First floor - north

- west

- east/creek

17.5

1.5m

7.0m

Second floor - north

- west

- east/creek

17.5m

1.0m

7.0m


5.2 STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height Clause 13(3) Maximum Storeys Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height Dwelling 1 has a maximum building height of 11.29 metres which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 2.79m or 32.8%.


Page 12

Dwelling 2 has a maximum building height of 11.93 metres which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 3.43m or 40.3%. Dwelling 3 has a maximum building height of 10.13 metres which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 1.63m or 19.1%. Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height Dwelling 1 has a maximum wall height of 11.29 metres which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 4.09m or 56.8%. Dwelling 2 has a maximum wall height of 11.93 metres which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 4.73m or 65.6%. Dwelling 3 has a maximum wall height of 9.73 metres which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of Mosman LEP 1998 by 2.53m or 35.1%. Clause 13(3) Maximum Storeys Dwelling 1 has up to four storeys which exceeds the development standard of two storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by two storeys or 100%. Dwelling 2 has up to four storeys which exceeds the development standard of two storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by two storeys or 100%. Dwelling 3 has up to three storeys which exceeds the development standard of two storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by one storey or 50%. The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views:

Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Storeys The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on private views with the

bushland outlook from the properties to the west of the site not being significantly compromised given the level difference between the properties fronting Royalist Road and the new allotments at 2 Harnett Avenue;

This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the bushland outlook from properties to the east and south of the site; and

The proposed development will not impact on any public views.

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

Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Storeys The proposed development will have a minimal visual impact when viewed from the

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

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

terms of height and pitched roof form:


Page 13

Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Storeys Development in the vicinity of the site incorporates a range of building styles, including

roof forms. The new dwellings incorporate skillion roof forms which will not be uncharacteristic of the more contemporary development in the locality;

The height of the proposed dwellings is not uncharacteristic of surrounding development, with the adjoining property to the south being constructed to a similar RL; and

Given the level of separation between the proposed dwelling houses and Harnett Avenue and Reid Park, the development will not be highly visible from these public domain areas.

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

existing residential areas: Maximum Building Height/Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Storeys The non-compliances can in part be attributed to the steep topography of the site, with

the highest part of the buildings generally being located on their eastern sides where the land slopes away;

The highest of the dwellings (Dwellings 1 and 2) have been designed to step down the site in line with the slope of the land;

The landscaping and design treatment proposed on the eastern side of the driveway will also assist to reduce the visual impact of the development when viewed from properties to the east in Park Avenue.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the variation to each of the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standards and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standards is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 19 - Bushland in Urban Areas The site adjoins land zoned 6(a) Public Recreation under the provisions of MLEP 1998 and as such clause 9 of SEPP 19 requires a consent authority to consider the matters at (c) – (e), in this regard:

Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape have reviewed the proposed development and have found that the proposed landscaping will result in an improvement on the site from the existing situation where the site is largely covered by noxious and environmental weeds. Given these findings, there would be no need to retain any bushland on the land other than as already proposed;

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance with the vegetation management plan; and

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to minimise the impact of the development on land zoned public open space to the south east of the site, including the need for fencing between the site and the unformed section of road and the installation of


Page 14

sedimentation measures for the duration of works. These conditions are not applied to the land zoned 6(a) Public Recreation to the north of the site given the level of separation between the proposed works and this land, and given this land is elevated above the site.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposed development will ensure the protection and preservation of land zoned for public open space as is the intent of SEPP 19. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.5 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.6 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(b) Residential. The works are defined as subdivision and dwelling houses and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives, in this regard it is noted:

The proposed development provides for three new dwelling houses which are neutral in their contribution to the variety of housing types in Mosman;

The proposed development will allow for the enhancement of landscaping on the site. Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape have advised that the landscaping proposed predominately will result in an improvement on the site from the existing situation where the site is covered by noxious and environmental weeds;


Page 15

The bulk, height and scale will have a reasonable impact on adjoining properties; MRDCP does not require adaptable and accessible housing for single dwelling houses; and This assessment has found that subject to the conditions recommended the proposed

development will have a reasonable impact on local amenity and public and private views. Minimum Lot Size The proposed Torrens title subdivision complies with the minimum lot size development standard of 300m2 for the erection of a dwelling house in the 2(b) residential zone. This assessment has found that the proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the objectives at clause 12(1) of MLEP 1998 relating to subdivision in residential zones, in this regard it is noted:

The predominant subdivision pattern comprises allotments with a range of widths, dimensions and shapes;

The proposed pattern of subdivision is not uncharacteristic of the predominant subdivision pattern; and

The proposed lots are of sufficient size to provide useable area for both building and landscaping.

Height The applicant has sought to vary the maximum building height, wall height and number of storeys development standards and has provided the following justification:

The height and position of the proposed houses on the lower slope will not affect the existing views and outlook from adjoining houses in Royalist Road which are located above the site, they will maintain their east and north east aspect over the top of the proposed houses;

The site and proposed houses will not be visible from the harbour and foreshores of Mosman Bay and Reid Park;

The colours and finishes of the buildings together with the proposed landscaping will assist the buildings to blend with the landscape and the natural surroundings;

The contemporary style and two storey and part three storey form and design of the proposed houses is acceptable in the context of the diverse scale, design and character of the surrounding development and responds to the constraints of the steeply sloping site;

The vertically proportioned design of the front of Dwellings 1 and 2 reduces the building footprint so that the dwellings are quite compact above the garage level and this allows for more landscaping particularly between buildings and the interface with the gully and the creek;

The impacts of bulk and scale in particular views, privacy and sunlight access to the adjoining dwelling are minimised by the wide side setback of 3m; and

Whilst there will be an increase in overshadowing of the north facing windows of the adjoining dwelling at 4 Harnett Avenue the proposal will not reduce sunlight access to less than 2 hours to north facing habitable room windows in mid winter.

The SEPP 1 objection has been assessed in section 5.2.1 of this report. Floorspace Ratio Each of the new dwellings has been designed to comply with the maximum floorspace ratio development standard of 0.55:1. This assessment has found that the proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the floorspace ratio objectives outlined at clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998, in this regard it is noted:


Page 16

The scale of the development is not uncharacteristic of the locality with Dwelling 1 proposed to be constructed to a similar height as the adjoining property to the south;

The excavation proposed has been assessed as reasonable and will not impact on the ability to landscape the site nor drainage from the site; and

The bulk and scale of the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on adjoining properties.

Landscaped Area Each of the new dwellings has been designed to comply with the minimum landscaped area requirement. This assessment has found that the proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the landscaped area objectives outlined at clause 15(1) of MLEP 1998, in this regard it is noted:

Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape have advised the proposed tree removal and subsequent landscaping of the site to be acceptable and have recommended that the proposed works will improve the site which is currently covered by noxious and environmental weeds to a site which is evidence of a pre European vegetation community;

The proposal involves the retention of Tree 2 an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) which has been identified as being of high landscape significance within the arboricultural assessment;

The proposed building footprints have been minimised which has the benefit of providing more ground level open space for recreation, landscaping and containing urban run-off; and

The excavation proposed has been assessed as reasonable and will not impact on the ability to landscape the site.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 indicates that Council must not consent to the erection of a building on land in the foreshore scenic protection area unless an assessment has been made having regard to the objectives of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment), the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. In this regard it is noted:

The proposal will have a reasonable impact on the watercourse, flora and fauna subject to the recommended conditions of consent;

The proposal will result in an improvement on the site in terms of the quality of landscaping; The proposal will have no impact on:

- access to and along Sydney Harbour and its foreshores, - the prosperity of the working harbour including transport with the harbour, - the harbour in terms of it being a culturally rich and vibrant place for people, - the recognition, protection, enhancement and maintenance of the harbour in terms

of it being an outstanding natural asset and public asset of national and heritage significance.

The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the natural and visual environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman, subject to the recommended conditions of consent. The proposed external finishes will assist the dwellings to blend within the landscape and the natural surroundings. The proposed landscaping will also assist to soften the visual impact of the development. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line.


Page 17

Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The provisions of Clause 30 of MLEP 1998 require that in assessing an application for development consent relating to land in the vicinity of a natural watercourse, the Council must consider:

(a) whether the proposed development would affect the water quality or obstruct the natural waterflow;

(b) the likelihood of increased run-off from the proposed development leading to degradation or erosion of the natural watercourse; and

(c) whether flora and fauna habitats would be affected by the proposed development. Advice from Council’s Contract Engineer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape is that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the natural watercourse when the above matters are considered. Detailed comments in this regard are provided at section 6.2 and 6.3 of this report. The conditions of consent recommended by Council’s Contract Engineer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape are included in the recommendation. Excavation MLEP 1998 indicates that the consent of Council is required where a development has the effect of materially altering the shape or natural form of the land and as part of a development, control should be made of soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with landform modification. Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that effective measures are used to minimise soil erosion and sedimentation loss resulting from the proposed development. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection Map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. Vicinity of Heritage 33 and 35 Royalist Road have frontage to a section of Royalist Road which is identified in MLEP 1998 as an item of local heritage significance. The site is also in the vicinity of Reid Park which is identified in MLEP 1998 as an item of local heritage significance. The statement of significance for Royalist Road indicates that Mosman's divided roads are integral to the Municipality's visual character and sense of place. Built as a utilitarian response to the steep harbourside topography, they reflect, in their fabric and construction technology, the development of Mosman's suburban structure. The large collection of these features makes Mosman instantly and uniquely recognisable.


Page 18

The statement of significance for Reid Park indicates that it is typical of many harbourside parks created on 'reclaimed' ground. Contains a number of individually significant structures and plants. Includes important remnant bushland and rainforest species. Demonstrates recent initiatives and techniques associated with management of natural bushland. Clause 37 of MLEP 1998 requires that when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider:

(a) the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance, curtilage and setting of the item, and

(b) the impact of the proposed development on any significant view to or from the heritage item.

The proposed development will have a reasonable impact when the above are considered, subject to the recommended conditions. Development of known or potential archaeological sites The site is not identified as a known archaeological site pursuant to Schedule 3 of MLEP 1998. The site does not fall within the Harnett Avenue and Royalist Road archaeological site as it is not located between the end of Calliope Street and the waterfront. Following concerns raised by residents that Aboriginal middens are located on and around the site, the applicant was requested by Council to further investigate this issue. The applicant has provided a report dated 9 October 2009 from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council which identifies the following:

“An Aboriginal site survey was carried out on foot at 2 Harnett Avenue, 33 Royalist Avenue and 35 Royalist Avenue Mosman NSW 2088 for the purpose of identifying any Aboriginal constraints to the proposed development. A copy of the land survey for the three lots and a copy of the development plans were provided. The survey was undertaken by Allen Madden Cultural Education Officer of the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC) and Warren Long of Longitude Planning Pty Ltd on 21 July 2009. Prior to any work commenced for the compiling of this report MLALC was notified and discussion took place with Warren Long about the proposal. A registered search was conducted on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System dataset for any know sites in or around the proposed development. There are no sites identified in or around the proposed development. This report outlines the findings of MLALC and will make recommendations and constraints that we feel will protect any sites unearthed or discovered during the proposed development. All exposed sandstone outcrops and shelters (caves) within the surveyed area were carefully examined for cultural material, there were no Aboriginal engravings or relics found. Also on 2 Harnett Avenue is a house which pre dates the early 1900’s and there are dwelling houses on 33 and 35 Royalist Road. The area below the Royalist Road houses has been reshaped and filled and sandstone walls constructed to retain the fill. There were some shell fragments evident but these are likely to be part of the imported fill, not midden deposits. MLALC have no objections to the development of 2 Harnett Avenue, 33 Royalist Avenue and 35 Royalist Avenue Mosman NSW 2088.


Page 19

If any sites or relics are unearthed during any stages of the development then all work should cease and MLALC and Department of Environment and Climate Change should be notified immediately and all work is to cease.”

Having regard to the advice provided by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, and the site not being identified as a known archaeological site pursuant to Schedule 3 of MLEP 1998, for the purpose of this assessment the site does not have Aboriginal heritage significance and is not a potential archaeological site that is reasonably likely to have Aboriginal heritage significance. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation in accordance with the advice from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council. Original Estate Road No realignment of an original estate road or historic road alignment described in Schedule 4 of MLEP 1998 is proposed as part of this application. 5.2.7 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as dwelling houses and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Subdivision A discussed, the proposed subdivision complies with the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house in the 2(b) residential zone at clause 12(2) of MLEP 1998. Planning guidelines P2, P3, P4, P5 and P6 require that the following matters be considered for applications proposing subdivision of land: Matter Consideration Slope of land The topography of the site is not uncharacteristic of

Mosman. The land slopes down in an easterly direction to the top of the creek bank. A cliff up to 4 metres in height exists on the eastern side of the dwelling houses at 33 and 35 Royalist Road.

Townscape design criteria This assessment has found that the proposed development reasonably satisfies the townscape design criteria.


Page 20

Matter Consideration Protect natural or cultural features including heritage items and their curtilage

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

Acknowledge site constraints The proposed subdivision acknowledges that the site is constrained, by providing allotment sizes in excess of the minimum requirement. This allows for greater flexibility in the location of dwellings on the allotments and associated infrastructure whist allowing for significant landscaping.

Retain special features such as trees, rock outcrops and views

Tree 2 an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) has been identified as being of high landscape significance within the arboricultural assessment and is proposed to be retained as part of the redevelopment. The rock outcrop between 33 and 35 Royalist Road and the proposed new dwellings is proposed to be retained. The geotechnical report indicates that the site contains a number of sandstone boulders some of which will be required to be removed for the proposed works following more detailed geotechnical investigations. The topography is such that the proposed new allotments are low-set when compared with existing development to the west and the proposed new dwellings will therefore not unreasonably impact on any views from these properties.

Address the street The proposed subdivision does not allow for development that addresses the street as access is proposed via a right of carriageway. Two of the three new lots will not have frontage to a street. This issue alone is not significant enough to warrant refusal of the development.

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

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

Orientation of lots for energy efficiency

Whist the proposed allotments do not provided the favoured north south orientation, the lots are of a size that allows for energy efficient development as demonstrated by the BASIX Certificate that has been issued for the development.

Existing subdivision pattern, street address and vehicular access

The proposed pattern of subdivision is not uncharacteristic of the predominant subdivision pattern which comprises allotments with a range of widths, dimensions and shapes. The street address of the new allotments is specified within the recommended conditions of consent. Council’s Contract Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway and car parking arrangement and has found the proposal to be reasonable with the exception of two aspects which are able to be resolved. Deferred commencement conditions are recommended to resolve these issues. Refer to section 6.3 of this report for further detail.


Page 21

Matter Consideration Vegetation and landscaping requirements

Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape have advised the proposed tree removal and subsequent landscaping of the site to be acceptable subject to the recommended conditions of consent. Substantial landscaping is proposed on each of the new allotments and the existing landscaping on the modified lots 33 and 35 Royalist Road is not proposed to be altered.

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

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

Servicing requirements mail, waste, power and water

An advice note is included in the recommendation requiring the applicant to consult with public authorities including mail and power. The applicant is required to obtain a S73 Certificate from Sydney Water prior to the issue of the subdivision certificate. A waste storage area is proposed adjacent to the street frontage. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure the waste storage area is of adequate size and design.

Width of access handle No access handles are proposed. Siting and Scale The proposed development does not comply with the building height, wall height and number of storeys development standards. The proposed development complies with the maximum floorspace ratio development standard. Refer to sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.6 of this report for further discussion in this regard. Development in Harnett Avenue does not display an established pattern of front setbacks. The narrow frontage of the site dictates the need for a right of carriageway to access each of the new allotments, resulting in each of the dwelling houses having substantial setbacks to Harnett Avenue. The proposed new dwellings are generally set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from the existing site boundaries (note the second floor level of Dwelling 3 has a 1.0 metre setback at its closest point). A 1.5 metre setback is assessed as reasonable having regard to the topography of the site and the extensive landscaping that is proposed to surround each dwelling. Dwelling 1 has a similar setback to the common boundary with the adjoining development at 4 Harnett Avenue. The third floor level of Dwelling 1 is proposed to be setback 3.0 metes from the southern boundary, compliant with the minimum MRDCP requirement. Internally within the development the setbacks of each of the dwelling houses are designed having adequate regard to the amenity of occupants. Dwelling 2 is provided with a zero setback to the


Page 22

southern boundary. The landscaping proposed on Lot 1 adjacent to the zero lot line wall will help to soften the visual impact of this wall when viewed from Lot 1. The setback of the proposed dwellings from their rear boundaries is reasonable having regard to the established pattern of development and will not unreasonably impact on site features and cross views of neighbouring properties. The proposed rear setbacks allow for a deep soil zone at the rear of the site. MRDCP requires that where a property adjoins a natural water course a minimum setback of 5 metres applies. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW have also required as part of their General Terms of Approval that a riparian corridor with a width of five (5) metres measured horizontally landward from the highest bank of the river for the length of the site be protected and maintained. The proposed development provides a 5.0 metre setback from the natural water course. This assessment has found that the building bulk of the proposed development has been located so as to have a reasonable impact on adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing and will have a reasonable impact on views from both neighbouring properties and the public domain. MRDCP requires that the building footprints should be designed to minimise cut and fill. The proposed development involves moderate levels of excavation, and once the construction process is completed the new buildings will largely fill the excavated area. Subject to the conditions recommended relating to erosion and sedimentation the proposed excavation is not unreasonable. MRDCP requires that the building form should be compatible with the prevailing development pattern and character in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. Development surrounding the subject site does not have a predominant style, with a mixture of building forms in existence. The proposed building form will not be incompatible within the locality given the variety of building forms that currently exist. Views Concern has been raised by the adjoining property owners at 31 Royalist Road in relation to loss of outlook resulting from the proposed development. The proposed new dwellings are low-set (approximately 3-4 metres) compared with the developments at 31 and 33 Royalist Road resulting in these developments enjoying views over the top of the proposed dwellings. Concern has been raised by the adjoining property owners on the opposite side of the creek with regard to a loss of their bushland outlook. 4 Harnett Avenue also enjoys bushland views over the site. The properties on the opposite side of the creek are vulnerable to loosing their bushland outlook given their orientation over the subject property. Any redevelopment of the site in accordance with the density provisions of MLEP 1998 would compromise the outlook from each of these properties. The materials and finishes proposed, along with substantial landscaping and the retention of Tree 2 will assist to minimise the impact of the development on the outlook from these properties. The proposed development complies with the MRDCP requirement that development must not significantly obstruct views from neighbouring properties. The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on private views. The proposed development will not impact on any public views. Landscaping Refer to MLEP 1998 landscaped area assessment. Comments from Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape are contained at section 6.1 and 6.2 of this report.


Page 23

Streetscape and Building Design Given the location of the proposed dwelling houses, the development will not be highly visible from public domain areas including Harnett Avenue and Reid Park, resulting in the development having minimal visual impact when viewed from these locations. The proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the Harnett Avenue streetscape given the level of separation. A schedule of materials and finishes has been provided. The schedule identifies that a range of materials and finishes will be used including painted rendered walls, cement composite cladding and stone cladding. A Colourbond roof (colour - 'Monument') is proposed for each of the dwellings. The external finishes are predominately earthy tones that will assist to soften the visual impact of the development and to assist it to blend within its setting. The proposed development complies with planning guideline P11 which requires that the colour and surface of external finishes be sympathetic to neighbourhood character and contribute to the overall impact of the development. No fencing is proposed as part of this application. A condition is included in the recommendation indicating that no fencing is approved as part of this application. Car-parking and Access MRDCP does not specify a minimum or maximum parking provision for dwelling houses. Double garages are proposed to be integrated into the design of each of the dwelling houses compliant with the minimum dimensions for car parking spaces. These garages will not be visible from the street. Planning guideline P10 of MRDCP is not able to be applied to the subject site given the irregular frontage to Harnett Avenue. MRDCP requires that car parking and driveway design are to preserve significant trees and vegetation on the site. The driveway has been designed having regard for the retention of Tree 2. Throughout the assessment of the application the driveway and parking arrangements have been amended to reduce their impact on Tree 2. Council’s Landscape Designer has reviewed the proposed development and has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on Tree 2 subject to the conditions included in the recommendation regarding tree protection. Whilst elevated driveways on steeply sloping sites are discouraged at planning guideline P18 of MRDCP, it is recommended that the design of the proposed driveway is reasonable for the following reasons:

A combination of timber posts, stainless steel wiring and mesh are proposed on the eastern edge of the driveway. It is proposed that landscaping will grow over the mesh and act as a screen to assist in reducing the visual impact of this structure. Council’s Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape has advised the vines proposed as part of the vegetation management plan would be capable of growing on the mesh. The inclusion of additional timber posts would further reduce the visual impact of this structure, a condition requiring such is included in the recommendation. A condition is also recommend that the mesh be a minimum of 300mm above the finished ground level to allow for the movement of fauna on the site;

The visual impact of the driveway will also be moderated through the landscaping proposed between the driveway and north eastern site boundary;

The elevated driveway allows for landscaping beneath the driveway; An elevated driveway would be preferred in the vicinity of Tree 2, so as to minimise the

impact of any excavation on this tree; No alternative that allows for access to each of the dwelling houses exists; and Council has approved an elevated driveway in a similar location on two occasions in the

past.


Page 24

Council’s Contract Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway and car parking arrangement and has found the proposal to be reasonable with the exception of two aspects of the development which include manoeuvring associated with the Dwelling 2 garage and the transitions of the driveway near where it connects to Harnett Avenue (detailed comments at section 6.3 of this report). Council’s Contract Engineer has advised that these issues are able to be resolved and has recommended deferred commencement conditions requiring further detail. Privacy and Security Concern has been raised by adjoining property owners in relation to visual and acoustic privacy. The visual privacy impact from each of the proposed dwelling houses is discussed separately below: Dwelling 1: Dwelling 1 has largely been designed with openings concentrated away from its southern elevation. At first floor level the dwelling incorporates a stairwell window on the southern elevation. This window is proposed to be fitted with a screen to reduce the potential for overlooking into the adjoining property to the south. The southern end of the terrace at this level is proposed to be fitted with an operable louvred screen. At second floor level the dwelling incorporates a bathroom and stairwell window on the southern elevation. The bathroom window is a highlight window and the stairwell window is proposed to be fitted with a screen. The southern end of the balcony at this level is proposed to be fitted with a solid privacy screen. At third floor level the dwelling incorporates a highlight WIR window on the southern elevation. No screening is proposed for the terrace at this level. To ensure this development does not unreasonably impact on the adjoining property to the south in terms of visual privacy, it is recommended that:

(a) the operable privacy screen at the southern end of the terrace at first floor level be designed so as to not allow a view to the dwelling at 4 Harnett Avenue; and

(b) whilst the terrace at the third floor level has been offset from the windows on the adjoining property, to reduce the perception of overlooking of this property a planter box should be installed for the width of the terrace on its southern side.

Openings on the northern elevation are located or proposed to be treated so as to not unreasonably impact on visual privacy of the future occupants of proposed Dwelling 2. A combination of the topography of the site, the level of separation, the proposed landscaping and retention of Tree 2 and the recommendations at (a) and (b) above will ensure that Dwelling 1 will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual privacy. Dwelling 2: At first floor level the dwelling incorporates a balcony on its eastern elevation. The northern and southern ends of this balcony are proposed to be fitted with solid privacy screens for part of the width of the balcony. Two living room windows are proposed on the eastern elevation, with some of the glazing for these windows proposed to be frosted. At first floor level two large living room windows are proposed on the northern elevation. One of the windows is proposed to be fitted with an operable louvred screen. The other incorporates part frosted glazing. A raised garden terrace is proposed to the north of the dwelling at this level. At second floor level the dwelling incorporates a balcony on its eastern elevation which is proposed to be accessed from bedrooms. The northern and southern ends of this balcony are proposed to be fitted with solid privacy screens for part of the width of the balcony. Other openings at this level


Page 25

service low usage rooms such as bedrooms and bathrooms, some frosted glazing is proposed to be used at this level. Openings at the third floor level service low usage rooms, some frosted glazing is proposed to be used at this level. No screening is proposed for the terrace at this level. To ensure this development does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual privacy, it is recommended that:

(a) the living room window on the northern elevation at first floor level shown as being fitted with an operable louvred screen shall have a sill height 1.2 metres above the finished floor level. The operable louvred screen for this window shall be retained;

(b) the terrace at third floor level shall be fitted with a planter box on its northern side for the width of the terrace;

(c) the garden terrace at RL19.85 shall be provided with a planter box on its north eastern side; and

(d) the solid privacy screen on the northern end of the balcony on the eastern elevation at first floor level shall extend the width of the balcony.

Openings are located or proposed to be treated so as to not unreasonably impact on visual privacy of the future occupants of proposed Dwelling 2 and 3. A combination of the topography of the site, the level of separation, the proposed landscaping and the recommendations at (a) – (d) above will ensure that Dwelling 2 will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual privacy. Dwelling 3: Following concerns raised by Council, the applicant amended the building footprint and orientation of Dwelling 3 from an easterly to a south easterly direction. This amendment has the benefit of orientating the outlook from this dwelling further away from the properties on the opposite side of the creek, in particular 2 Park Avenue. At first floor level Dwelling 3 incorporates a balcony on its eastern elevation. The northern and southern ends of this balcony are proposed to be fitted with solid privacy screens for part of the width of the balcony. Two living room windows are proposed on the eastern elevation, with some of the glazing for these windows proposed to be frosted. At first floor level a large kitchen window is proposed on the northern elevation which incorporates part frosted glazing. A raised garden terrace is proposed to the north of the dwelling at this level. At second floor level the dwelling incorporates a balcony on its eastern elevation and a terrace on its southern elevation which are proposed to be accessed from bedrooms. The northern and southern ends of this balcony are proposed to be fitted with solid privacy screens for part of the width of the balcony. Other openings at this level service low usage rooms such as bedrooms and bathrooms, some frosted glazing is proposed to be used at this level. To ensure this development does not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual privacy, it is recommended that:

(a) The solid privacy screen on the northern end of the balcony on the eastern elevation at first floor level shall extend the width of the balcony; and

(b) Landscaping on the north eastern side of the garden terrace at RL 21.45 shall have a height at maturity to provide a vegetative screen between the terrace and the properties on the other side of the creek.


Page 26

Openings are located or proposed to be treated so as to not unreasonably impact on visual privacy of the future occupants of proposed Dwelling 2. A combination of the topography of the site, the level of separation, the proposed landscaping and the recommendations at (a) and (b) above will ensure that Dwelling 3 will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties in terms of visual privacy. Concern has also been raised in relation to visual and acoustic privacy impacts from the proposed driveway. As already discussed, the eastern edge of the driveway is proposed to be treated with a combination of timber posts, stainless steel wiring and mesh. It is proposed that landscaping will grow over the mesh and act as a screen. This screen will assist to reduce visual and acoustic privacy impacts on properties to the east. The inclusion of additional timber posts would further reduce privacy impacts from this structure, a condition requiring such is included in the recommendation. Whilst the site is located in a ‘gully environment’, it is noted that the density of the proposed development is consistent with that permitted in this locality under the provisions of MLEP 1998, the development would be unlikely to result in acoustic impacts other than would normally be expected in a medium density area in a similar environment. Conditions of consent are included in the development consent to control the acoustic output from plant and equipment and to ensure that fixed external speakers are not fitted to any of the dwelling houses. The properties on the opposite side of the creek particularly, 1 and 2 Park Avenue, are vulnerable to visual privacy impacts given their orientation over the subject property. Any redevelopment of the site in accordance with the density provisions of MLEP 1998 would compromise the visual and acoustic privacy of these properties. This assessment has found that the design of the proposed development in combination recommendations made above will moderate these impacts to a level compliant with the MRDCP privacy objective to have adequate visual and acoustic privacy levels for residents and neighbours. Crime Prevention The proposed development would be unlikely to have a high crime risk and the design has had reasonable regard to minimising crime risk. Sunlight, Daylight and Over-shadowing MRDCP requires that buildings should be sited and designed to maximise sunlight to north facing windows of living areas and principal areas of open space and that north facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space should not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Given the topography and orientation of the site, the proposed development (in particular the dwelling house on Lot 1) impacts on the adjoining property 4 Harnett Avenue in terms of overshadowing. 4 Harnett Avenue contains a number of windows on its northern elevation, three of these windows service living areas (lounge room and dining room). The applicant has provided elevation shadow diagrams which demonstrate the impact of overshadowing on the northern elevation of 4 Harnett Avenue. The diagrams are provided at half hourly intervals from 9am to 12 noon followed by hourly intervals until 3pm. Following concerns raised by Council and the adjoining property owner in relation to solar access to 4 Harnett Avenue, the design of the dwelling house on Lot 1 has been amended, including:

increasing the setback to the southern side boundary at the upper level;


Page 27

change to the height and design of the roof form; and shifting the upper levels of the building in a westerly direction.

These amendments provide greater solar access to north facing living room windows of 4 Harnett Avenue. In the Land and Environment Court judgement in the matter of Parsonage v Ku-ring-gai [2004] Senior Commissioner Roseth found that for a window to be assessed as being in sunlight, half of its area should be in sunlight. The amended design does not allow for solar access to one of the three living room windows compliant with the MRDCP requirement when this judgement is considered. Two living room windows will receive two hours of sunlight on 21 June, compliant with the MRDCP minimum requirement. The third window will receive approximately half an hour of sunlight. Solar access to windows on the upper level of 4 Harnett Avenue will not be affected by the shadow cast on June 21. Senior Commissioner Roseth also established that the ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect. The site is located in a medium density area. Senior Commissioner Roseth also established that the amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained. 4 Harnett Avenue currently enjoys full solar access to its northern elevation. This is due to the siting of the existing dwelling house at 2 Harnett Avenue. With regard to the overshadowing impact of the development on the principal areas of open space of 4 Harnett Avenue, the plan form shadow diagrams identify that the 9am shadow cast from the dwelling house on Lot 1 will affect part of the rear yard of 4 Harnett Avenue. By 12 noon the shadow has moved further toward the east and no longer impacts on the rear yard of 4 Harnett Avenue. The balcony areas on the eastern elevation of 4 Harnett Avenue will continue to receive solar access in the morning period. Having regard to the above, the proposed development whilst not providing compliant solar access to one of the three living room windows at 4 Harnett Avenue, will have a reasonable overshadowing impact in the circumstances. Each of the proposed new dwelling houses will receive adequate levels of solar access. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities are able to be provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency and Water Conservation As discussed in this report, a BASIX Certificate has been submitted with the development application. The BASIX SEPP indicates that this policy overrides any DCP that would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management At the request of Council the applicant has provided amendments and additional information in relation to the proposed method of stormwater management. The comments of Council’s Contract Engineer are detailed at section 6.3 of this report and include reasoning for why on-site stormwater detention is not required for this development. In summary Council’s Contract Engineer has advised that the proposed method of stormwater disposal which involves stormwater being directed to the creek is acceptable and will have a reasonable impact on the creek subject to the implementation of certain measures including armouring of the creek bank.


Page 28

Deferred commencement conditions are recommended to ensure consistency in the plans with the most recently amended stormwater drainage plan and stormwater calculations and the submission of full design details for the proposed armouring of the creek bank. Subject to the recommended conditions of consent the proposed development will satisfy the objectives and relevant planning guidelines relating to stormwater management. Site Management and Excavation The comments of Council’s Contract Engineer regarding geotechnical issues are contained at section 6.3 of this report. Conditions are included in the recommendation requiring that further detailed geotechnical investigations be carried out as per the recommendations in the geotechnical report supplied by the applicant. The cut and fill proposed as part of this application is not unreasonable and subject to further detailed geotechnical investigations being carried out and recommendations implemented, site disturbance will be reasonable. Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the relevant requirements of MRDCP site management and excavation are adhered to including the requirement for a dilapidation report for 31 Royalist Road and 4 Harnett Avenue. Waste Management The applicant has submitted a waste management plan with the development application which details the re-use and recycling of waste. At the request of Council’s Contracts Supervisor – Waste, the proposed development has been amended to provide a waste storage area within the property boundaries adjacent to the Harnett Avenue frontage. Council’s Health Officer has advised that the waste storage area needs to be of sufficient size to accommodate 4 x 240 litre bins and 3 x 120 litre bins. The design of the waste storage area is insufficient to accommodate the required bins with adequate circulation space. With minor amendments the waste storage area could accommodate the required bins. Conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure the waste storage area is of an appropriate size and is designed in accordance with planning guideline P9 at section 5.15 of MRDCP. Subject to the recommended conditions of consent the proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the outcomes and planning guidelines relating to waste management. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. The proposed development is consistent with desired future character objectives, in this regard it is noted:

The proposed materials and finishes are not dissimilar to other development in the vicinity of the site despite incorporating some materials that are discouraged such as painted render;

The proposal will have a reasonable impact on views; Council’s Landscape Designer and Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape

recommended the proposed works will improve the site which is currently covered by noxious and environmental weeds to a site which is evidence of a pre European vegetation community;

Substantial landscaping of the site is proposed; The external finishes are predominately earthy tones that will assist to soften the visual

impact of the development and assist it to blend within its setting. A Colourbond


Page 29

‘Monument’ roof is proposed for each of the dwellings which given its dark colour will have a low reflectivity;

The roof form is consistent with the objective to encourage a variety of roof forms with a skillion roof being proposed for each of the dwellings;

The development does not have any garage openings to the street; No fencing is proposed to be incorporated into the development; The proposal involves the retention of some of the existing retaining walls that are

constructed of sandstone. Bushfire Prone Land The site is identified as being bushfire prone on the Bushfire Prone Land Map. As subdivision is proposed, the development is integrated development under section 100B of the Rural Fires Act 1997 with NSW Rural Fire Service being the approval body. The NSW Rural Fire Service have issued a bush fire safety authority as required under section100B of the 'Rural Fires Act 1997' subject to conditions of consent which are included in the recommendation. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (MTDCP) MTDCP does not specify a minimum or maximum parking provision for dwelling houses. Double garages are proposed to be integrated into the design of each of the dwelling houses. Clause 2.10 of MTDCP indicates that a Construction Traffic Management Plan is required for developments that may have a significant impact on the road system during construction and on sites with limited access. The applicant has submitted a preliminary construction traffic management plan for the site works. Council’s Contract Engineer has recommended a condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring the approval by Council’s Traffic Committee of a Construction Traffic Management Plan prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Refer to discussion under ‘car-parking and access’ for detail in relation to the design of the proposed driveway and car parking arrangement. A traffic report has been submitted with the development application prepared by Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd. With regard to traffic impacts from the proposed development, the report concludes that the projected traffic activity as a consequence of the development proposal is statistically insignificant and will not have any unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity. Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer has been consulted regarding the impact of the proposed development on existing traffic in Harnett Avenue and has advised that the development which results in three additional dwellings would not have a significant impact on existing traffic in Harnett Avenue and refusal on traffic grounds would not be warranted. Having regard to the above, the proposed development is assessed as satisfactory in meeting the objectives of MTDCP subject to the recommended conditions of consent. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation.


Page 30

5.3.4 Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy A significant rock wall identified by this policy is located in Royalist Road at the front of 31 and 33 Royalist Road. No change is proposed to this wall as part of this application. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES 6.1 Comments from Council’s Landscape Designer Council’s Landscape Designer made the following comments: After a site inspection along with Council’s Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape, plus reviewing documents and plans submitted, the following comments are made: Tree No. Name Comment Tree 1 Prunus persica Removal approved – unsuitable species

which is exempt from Councils’ TPO Tree 2 Angophora costata Retain – this tree is of particular

importance to the site due to its prominence in the landscape plus it is an indigenous species to Mosman - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 3 Cinnamomum camphora Removal approved – unsuitable species Camphor Laurels are only covered by Council’s TPO when over 10m. In this case although the tree is over 10m it is not necessary for retention due to being an unsuitable species


Tree 5 Pittosporum undulatum Removal approved – unsuitable species remove to allow for more replacement suitable planting

Tree 6 Ligustrum sinense Removal approved – unsuitable species which is exempt from Councils’ TPO

Tree 7 Jacaranda mimosifolia Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 8 Stenocarpus sinuatus Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 9 Pittosporum undulatum Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions


Page 31

Tree No. Name Comment Tree 10 Celtis sp Removal approved – unsuitable species

which is exempt from Councils’ TPO when below 10m

Tree 11 Pittosporum undulatum Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 12 Eucalyptus sp Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it is exempt from Councils’ TPO (Dead)

Tree 13 Dead Tree Exempt from Councils’ TPO Tree 14 Ligustrum lucidum Removal approved – unsuitable species

which is exempt from Councils’ TPO Tree 15 Acer palmatum Removal approved – not necessary to

retain as it does not add any benefits to the biodiversity of the site

Tree 16 Pittosporum undulatum Removal approved – unsuitable species trees less than 5m are exempt from Councils’ TPO

Tree 17 Cinnamomum camphora Removal approved – unsuitable species Exempt from Councils’ TPO when below 10m

Tree 18 Ligustrum lucidum Removal approved – unsuitable species which is exempt from Councils’ TPO

Tree 19 Ligustrum lucidum Removal approved – unsuitable species which is exempt from Councils’ TPO

Tree 20 Plumeria rubra Removal approved – not necessary to retain, trees less than 5m are exempt from Councils’ TPO

Tree 21 Cinnamomum camphora Removal approved – unsuitable species exempt from Councils’ TPO when below 10m

Tree 22 Musa sp Removal approved – unsuitable species bananas are not suitable for retention

Tree 23 Celtis sp Removal approved – unsuitable species which is exempt from Councils’ TPO when below 10m

Tree 24 Persea Americana Removal approved – unsuitable species Avocados are not suitable for retention

Tree 25 Liquidambar styraciflua Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 26 Cyathea cooperi Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 27 Cyathea Australis Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions


Tree 29 Celtis sp Removal approved – unsuitable species Celtis are only covered by Council’s TPO when over 10m. In this case although the tree is over 10m it is not necessary for retention due to being an unsuitable species


Page 32

Tree No. Name Comment Tree 30 Angophora costata Retain – this tree is of particular

importance as it is a mature tree indigenous to the Mosman area - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 31 Cinnamomum camphora Remove - approved only due to Geotechnical report finding the rock boulder unstable.

Tree 32 Cinnamomum camphora Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions. Although not a desirable species, retention of Tree 32 is recommended due to significance in the landscape.

Tree 33 Acer palmatum Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it does not add any benefits to the biodiversity of the site


Tree 35 Howea forsteriana Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it is of low landscape significance

Tree 36 Jacaranda mimosifolia Removal approved – not necessary to retain

Tree 37 Cyathea australis Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 38 Musa sp Proposed for retention – no protection measures required as it is of no landscape significance

Tree 39 Phoenix canariensis Remove (approved only due to Geotechnical report finding the rock boulder unstable)


Tree 41 Phoenix canariensis Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 42 Cyathea australis Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions

Tree 43 Ceratopetalum gummiferum

Retain - protection measures as outlined in conditions


Tree 45 Jacaranda mimosifolia Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it is an exotic species. Its removal provide reduced canopy allowing for light to new plantings


Page 33

Tree No. Name Comment Tree 46 Howea forteriana Removal approved – not necessary to

retain as it is of low landscape significance



Tree 49 Jacaranda mimosifolia Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it is an exotic species - its removal will provide reduced canopy for light to new plantings

Tree 50 Pinus radiata Removal approved – not necessary to retain – Pinus are not suitable for retention on this site

Tree 51 Howea forsteriana Removal approved – not necessary to retain – low landscape significance

Tree 52 Howea fosrteriana Removal approved – not necessary to retain - low landscape significance

Tree 53 Erythrina Removal approved – unsuitable species Coral Trees are generally considered a highly unsuitable species in Mosman due to branch drop etc.


Tree 55 Phoenix canariensis Removal approved – not necessary to retain as it is an exotic species - remove to allow for more appropriate replacement planting


Tree 57 Dead tree Exempt from Councils’ TPO Tree 58 Cupaniopsis anacardiodis Retain (protection measures as outlined

in conditions) The conditions of consent recommended by Council’s Landscape Designer are included in the recommendation. 6.2 Comments from Council’s Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape Council’s Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape made the following comments:


Page 34

“I have reviewed the Assessment of Significance for possible effects on the threatened bird species, Powerful Owl, under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and concur with its findings. I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a significant impact on this species. I have discussed the methodology of the maintenance of the site as outlined in the vegetation management plan by Footprint Green and dated 9 October 2009 with the author and are satisfied that adequate funds have been provided. It is noted that funds have been increased from the initial plan and that the author stated that the site will be prepared so that weed seed stored in the soil that would require a large maintenance budget will be removed from site prior to capping and revegetation works. Further the project is required to meet defined performance criteria and thus effectively the cost of works is irrelevant as the vegetation management plan is outcome based and has performance measures which will be monitored and reported on. I am satisfied that by following the vegetation management plan the applicant will in the long-term greatly improve the biodiversity value of this area. The area at present is largely covered by noxious and environmental weeds and the works described in the plan will recreate a pre European vegetation community in this riparian area. In regards to the substantial loss of tree canopy it was considered that the majority of tree species to be removed are not native species and the short term loss will allow for the effective establishment of a native tree canopy for the site in the long-term. Also strict tree protection measures are proposed for all trees to be retained on the site to reduce in part the impact of the loss of tree canopy across the site”.

The conditions of consent recommended by Council’s Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape are included in the recommendation. 6.3 Comments from Council’s Contract Engineer Council’s Contract Engineer made the following comments:

Access: Access to the proposed development is proposed via an elevated driveway with a designated pedestrian path adjacent. This appears to comply with the relevant Australian Standard in all but two instances:

1. The ease of access/egress to and from the dwelling 2 parking space. 2. The change in grades in the transition from Harnett Avenue to the access

drive. With respect to point 1 above, the issue is exacerbated by the obtuse angle of the parking spaces to the access drive, especially the southern most space for dwelling 2. The issue could be alleviated by moving the driveway closer to the creekline, but it is noted that this would encroach into the riparian zone. With respect to point 2, changing the transition grades to comply with the Australian standard may necessitate raising the low point of the road which is within Council Land. Inspections of the site in addition to the cross sections submitted indicate that changes to the transition grades will be able to be accomplished without affecting the viability of the development or adversely affecting the road landscape. For the reasons stated above, it is considered that issues 1 needs to be resolved prior to development consent being issued, while issue 2 can be dealt with prior to CC.


Page 35

Works on Council Property: The work undertaken within Council property will require a separate “Works on Council Property” application and which will require separate additional conditions. No major issues are anticipated based on the DA submission, however more details of the proposal within Council land will be required before conditions can be determined. Geotechnical The preliminary Geotechnical Investigation by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd dated 31 March 2009 Ref 22707LBrpt, contained recommendations regarding various elements of the site works. Of particular note is the observation that the site is formed on a steep bank to the adjoining creek and contains ‘floater’ or detached sandstone boulders which are not satisfactory as building foundations. It is noted that the inspection of proposed foundation levels will be required during the works. Also of note is the need to retain the stability of the slope and this issue overlaps with the erodability of the slope due to creek flows. The preliminary report recommended that a detailed geotechnical investigation be carried out and that this investigation be used as a basis for detailed design. It was also recommended that geotechnical supervision be provided throughout the site works to qualify, amongst other things, the correct level of footings into bedrock and not into rock floaters. The recommendations of this preliminary report and the future detailed investigation and report are considered to be critical for this site and appropriate conditions have been drafted in this regard. Stormwater and Creek Flooding The site is located towards the bottom of the Mosman Bay West stormwater catchment. The catchment runoff is conveyed by the creek adjacent to the property. Stormwater runoff disposal has been designed into the existing creek with protection of the outlet structures against erosion. These measures along with creek bank armouring where required are considered sufficient to prevent additional erosion of the creek through site runoff. Due to it’s location at the bottom of a large catchment and adjacent to a natural water course, OSD is not beneficial and would likely create a worsening of the peak flows for the catchment which is contrary to the desired effect of OSD. By not applying OSD here, peak flows from the site will be further downstream in the creek by the time that the upstream catchment peak flows arrive at this section of the creek. Therefore the proposal is not likely to increase peak flows in the creek. As with any development of hard surfaces and involving vehicle movements, there will likely be some minor negative effect on water quality through runoff, although these effects are probably theoretical and unlikely to be measureable. It is noted that the water quality currently in the creek is not considered of a high quality and is affected by road runoff and other contaminations from the large urban upstream catchment. The issue of erosion of the creek bank is considered critical for this development. This issue was raised in the applicant’s preliminary geotechnical report and has been raised by Council with the applicant during the assessment period. The creek bank has the potential to become eroded in areas where natural soils are exposed to flood flows. It is noted from site inspections that the creek bank within the site contains both outcrops of sandstone and natural soils. The erodible areas of the creek need to be identified and correlated against predicted storm flows within the creek. The applicant’s stormwater engineers have provided a catchment model of the flows during storm events up to the 100 year event. This model is based on accepted sound engineering design principals and the predicted flows are consistent if not conservative when compared to Council’s previous modelling


Page 36

undertaken on this catchment. The model indicates that 100 year flood levels are well below proposed internal floor levels by several metres. Details of creek armouring provided by the applicant’s stormwater engineers, however, remains generic in nature and due to the importance of this issue, needs to be specified in more detail prior to the release of development approval. It is also considered necessary that inspection of the armouring be carried out during construction and that certification be obtained from both the geotechnical consultant (to qualify the slope stability) and the stormwater designer or PCA (to verify the details of the construction method and detail against the design). Construction Traffic Management The applicant has submitted a preliminary construction traffic management plan for the site works. Council’s traffic engineering section has raised no objections to the plan, however it is noted that more detail may be required prior to release of the Construction Certificate. It is also noted that this position is dependant on there being, as suggested no loss of parking or need for a work zone within Harnett Avenue, and that construction traffic will be accommodated on site.

The conditions of consent recommended by Council’s Contract Engineer are included in the recommendation. 6.4 Comments from the NSW Rural Fire Service The proposed development is integrated development as it requires approval under the Rural Fires Act 1997. The development application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Service on two occasions. The NSW Rural Fire Service have responded by issuing a bush fire safety authority as required under section 100B of the ‘Rural Fires Act 1997’ subject to conditions which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent. 6.5 Comments from the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW The proposed development is integrated development as it requires approval under the Water Management Act 2000. The development application was referred to the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water on two occasions. The NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water have responded by issuing General Terms of Approval which have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of consent. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 29 April 2009 and 14 May 2009. Submissions were received from or on behalf of the following twenty four (24) properties: 1A Park Avenue; 3/10 Harnett Avenue;

1 Park Avenue;

5/10 Harnett Avenue;

4/2A Park Avenue;


4/2 Park Avenue;


2 and 3/2 Park Avenue;

12 Harnett Avenue;

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D2000%20AND%20no%3D92&nohits=y�



Page 37

3 Park Avenue;

14 Harnett Avenue;

6 Park Avenue;

16 Harnett Avenue;

1/6 Park Avenue;

27 Royalist Road;

4/6 Park Avenue;

1/31 Royalist Road;

4 Harnett Avenue;

3/31 Royalist Road;

6 Harnett Avenue;

4/31 Royalist Road

5/31 Royalist Road.

5/31 Royalist Road

Two (2) consultant submissions were received: Rodney Jensen & Associates on behalf of A & W Cohen Unit 4, 2 (2D) Park Avenue Planning Strategies P.S. Pty Ltd. The submission identified that they acted for several

residents, though did not disclose which residents. Amended plans were notified between 28 August 2009 and 14 September 2009. Following an error with the description of the development, the amended plans were again notified between 15 September 2009 and 29 September 2009. Submissions were received from or on behalf of the following fifteen (15) properties: 1 Park Avenue;


4/2 Park Avenue;

12 Harnett Avenue;

1/3 Park Avenue;

16 Harnett Avenue;

1/6 Park Avenue;

8 Harnett Avenue;

3/6 Park Avenue;

1/31 Royalist Road;

4 Harnett Avenue;

3/31 Royalist Road;


5/31 Royalist Road.

Two (2) consultant submissions were received:

Warren & Warren Solicitors & Attorneys. The submission identified that they acted for several residents, though did not disclose which residents.

Planning Strategies. The submission identified that they acted for: 4, 6, 8, 1/10, 2/10, 3/10,

4/10, 5/10, 6/10, 7/10 and 8/10, 12, 14 and 16 Harnett Avenue; 1, 1a, 2D, 4/2a, 3, 1/6, 2/6 and 3/6 Park Avenue and 27, 1/31, 3/31, 4/31 and 5/31 Royalist Road.

Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Concern regarding traffic and safety impacts from construction traffic given the nature of

Harnett Avenue;


Page 38

Tradespeople should not be permitted to park in Harnett Avenue; Pedestrian safety associated with construction vehicles; Noise impacts from trucks and heavy equipment; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.2 and 6.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the traffic and safety impacts during works. The development will result in ongoing traffic impacts in Harnett Avenue; Fumes from additional traffic; Parking is already an issue in Harnett Avenue and the proposed development will worsen

an existing problem; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.2 of this report for discussion in relation to ongoing traffic impacts of the development. Pollution impacts on the creek resulting from the proposed development; Erosion impacts on the creek resulting from the proposed development; As large volumes of water flow through the creek in high rainfall, question whether a 5

metre setback is adequate; and Putting additional rocks in the creek is inappropriate as it may be ineffective and will detract

from the setting. Comment: Refer to section 5.2.6 and 6.3 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the development on the creek. The proposed removal of trees would be a breach of Council’s Tree Preservation Order; The proposed development will result in the destruction of rainforest; The proposed removal of trees/vegetation will result in loss of habitat and will impact on

biodiversity; The site is part of an important landscaped corridor between Royalist Road and Reid Park

which will be degraded by the proposed development; Comment: This assessment has found that the proposed development will have a reasonable impact on the existing landscape, including biodiversity. Refer to section 5.2.6, 6.1 and 6.2 for further discussion in relation to these issues. Amenity impacts associated with the proposed removal of Trees 25 and 31 on the units in

31 Royalist Road and 33 Royalist Road; Concern with the geotechnical report arguing that Tree 31 needs to be removed due to

stability issues following the request from Council to retain the tree; and Impact of the removal of these trees on the bushland view from the units in 31 Royalist

Road and 33 Royalist Road Comment: Following concerns raised by the owners at 31 Royalist Road regarding the removal of Trees 25 and 31 on their amenity, the applicant was asked to amend the design to allow for the retention of these trees. Tree 25 is a Liquidambar styraciflua which is identified in the arborist report as having a height of 25 metres and a canopy spread of 18 metres and being of significant landscape significance. Tree 31 is a Cinnamomum camphora which is identified in the arborist report as being 22 metres in height with a canopy spread of 20 metres and being of significant landscape significance. These trees form a significant part of the landscaped outlook in an easterly direction from the units at 31 Royalist Road and 33 Royalist Road.


Page 39

The applicant has amended the design to retain Tree 25 however has advised that it is not feasible to retain Tree 31 following the recommendations from their geotechnical engineer and arborist, with the geotechnical engineer finding there to be likely stability issues should the tree be retained. Council’s Landscape Officer has reviewed the proposed development and has recommended removal of Tree 31 given that the Geotechnical report finds the boulder to be unstable. Whilst the removal of Tree 31 is not favourable, its retention would be likely to present a safety risk to the future occupants of the development. The landscape plan identifies canopy replacement plantings, including two Angophora costata in the vicinity of Tree 31 which given time will provide further amenity to 31 Royalist Road. Refusal on the grounds of the removal of Tree 31 given amenity impacts on these Royalist Road properties would not be warranted. The development is an overdevelopment of the site; The development does not comply with MLEP1998 objectives; The development does not comply with the height; The development whilst complying with the floorspace ratio development standard does not

comply with the objectives relating to floorspace ratio; The development whilst complying with the landscaped area standard does not comply with

the objectives relating to landscaped area; Development is insufficiently setback from the boundaries; Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the compliance of the development with the provisions of MLEP 1998 and MRDCP. The proposed subdivision is inappropriate given the site constraints in terms of topography,

the creek, vegetation and rock outcrops and will result in unacceptable neighbour impacts including but not limited to, a loss of landscaped outlook for properties in Royalist Road and Park Avenue; and

The use of a right of way to access the allotments is alien to the existing subdivision pattern;

Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the appropriateness of the proposed subdivision. The works on Council land should be considered concurrently and not as a separate

matter; Concern regarding works on public land; and Concern that there may have been a transfer of land. Comment: No transfer of ownership of public land has occurred nor is it proposed as part of this application. To gain access to the site some works are required to be undertaken within the road reserve. The new works are not proposed to extend further in an easterly direction than the existing road leading to the garage at 2 Harnett Avenue. No widening of the turning circle in Harnett Avenue is proposed. These works within the road reserve are required to form the subject of a works on Council property application. Council’s Contract Engineer has recommended that the appropriate timing of dealing with the works on Council property application is prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate. Concern regarding site stability given the sensitive nature of the site and the impact of this

on neighbouring properties; and The geotechnical information is inadequate to assess the potential impacts of the

development. Comment: The comments of Council’s Contract Engineer regarding geotechnical issues are contained at section 6.3 of this report. Conditions are included in the recommendation requiring


Page 40

that further detailed geotechnical investigations be carried out as per the recommendations in the geotechnical report supplied by the applicant. Overshadowing of 4 Harnett Avenue; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to overshadowing of adjoining properties. Construction will impact on health of residents; Comment: Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to reduce the impact of the site works on adjoining properties and their occupants. These include limitations on the hours of audible site works and that measures be employed to prevent the emission of dust and other impurities into the surrounding environment. Acoustic impacts on residents associated with construction; Comment: A condition of consent is included in the recommendation restricting audible site works to between 7.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturday. Inaudible site works may also take place between 7.00am and 8.00am on Saturdays and that no site works shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays. These hours are consistent with the hours applied to other development in Mosman. Visual and acoustic privacy impacts on 1, 2 and 6 Park Avenue, 31 and 33 Royalist Road

and 4 Harnett Avenue; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to visual and acoustic privacy impacts from the proposed development. The proposed driveway will have an unacceptable impact on properties in Park Avenue in

terms of visual impact, noise and use of lights at night; Comment: Refer to section 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to impacts associated with the driveway. The design of the development is out of character with other nearby development which

incorporate predominately pitched roof forms; The development is not consistent with the desired future character; Comment: Refer to sections 5.2.6 and 5.3.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the character of the development and its compatibility with surrounding development. Impact on property values; Comment: No evidence has been supplied to suggest that the proposed development would have a negative impact on property values. Concern that Aboriginal middens are located on and around the site and the proposed

development will disturb an important area; Comment: Refer to section 5.2.6 of this report for discussion in relation to the existence of Aboriginal middens on and around the site. The investigation undertaken by the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council was too

limited and did not incorporate all land involved in the proposed development;


Page 41

One adjoining property owner has identified that the officer from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council has confirmed that he only inspected 2 Harnett Avenue and not 33 and 35 Royalist Road;

Comment: Following the issues identified with the report from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council, the applicant was asked to revisit the issue of Aboriginal middens being located on and around the site. An amended report has been provided from the Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council. Concern regarding vehicular access and manoeuvring to the dwelling house proposed on

Lot 3; Comment: Refer to sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 of this report for discussion in relation to vehicular access. Council’s Contract Engineer has not raised issue with the proposed method of access and manoeuvring for Dwelling 3. Request that height markers be erected to assist residents understand the scale of the

development; Why are height markers only reserved for water views? The markers that have been erected do not assist in understanding the scale and overall

envelope of the development; Comment: In accordance with MRDCP profiles are reserved for view loss issues only. Markers were erected on the site to identify the footprints of the proposed dwelling houses. The model is misleading; Comment: This concern has been noted as part of this assessment. It should be noted that the model should only be used as a guide as the architectural plans determine what is approved on the site. Reflection impact from the roof on 31 Royalist Road; Comment: The schedule of finishes submitted indicates that a Colourbond roof ‘Monument’ is proposed for each of the dwelling houses. The proposed roof colour is dark which will reduce the impact of reflectivity on nearby residences. Development has been incorrectly described in the notification letter; Comment: Following an error with the description of the development, the amended plans were again notified between 15 September 2009 and 29 September 2009. The development is not in the public interest; Comment: This assessment has found that despite the non-compliance with a number of Council’s requirements, the proposed development is acceptable as it will have a reasonable impact on the public domain, adjoining properties and will result in an improvement from the existing situation in terms of the natural environment. This assessment is guided by the location of the site in an area zoned for medium density development. The proposed areas of private open space are inadequate; Comment: Each of the proposed dwellings are provided with adequate areas of private open space and incorporate more than one usable outdoor area.


Page 42

Concern that due process has not been followed in the assessment of the application as Council did not allow for the full closure of the notification period before requesting additional information from the applicant;

Comment: All submissions received have been reviewed and taken into consideration in the assessment of this application. Council is under no obligation under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to not request further information whilst an application is being publically notified. Aside from this, the notification period that the resident has raised concern with was the period between 15 September 2009 and 29 September 2009 which was a re-notification period following an error with the description of the development. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. This assessment has found that despite the non-compliance with a number of Council’s requirements, the proposed development is acceptable as it will have a reasonable impact on the public domain, adjoining properties and will result in an improvement from the existing situation in terms of the natural environment. A deferred commencement consent is recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Scott Barton C/- Marchese Partners International. The owners are Mr S A & Ms R A Barton. The estimated value of works is $3,802,500.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

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

the context of surrounding development; (c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts; and (d) Requiring compliance with the standards would unreasonably constrain the

development and the design response.


Page 43

B. That Development Application No. 8.2009.103.1 be approved as a deferred commencement subject to the following conditions:

PART A 1. This consent shall not operate until the applicant submits the following information to the

satisfaction of Council:

(a) To ensure consistency with the most recently amended plan and stormwater calculations, a full set of stormwater drainage plans consistent with Drawing No. C02 Issue D dated 5 November 2009 and the letter from LHO Group Pty Limited dated 12 October 2009 including the attached calculations sheets shall be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Assets and Services.

(b) Details shall be submitted to demonstrate how the proposed parking spaces comply with AS 2890.1 with respect to access and egress at Dwelling 2.

(c) Details shall be submitted to demonstrate how the proposed access driveway complies with AS 2890.1 with respect to transition grades to/from Harnett Avenue.

(d) Full design details for the proposed armouring of the creek bank shall be submitted

and approved. Plans shall show full construction details and indicate the lineal extent of each treatment type and the details of each treatment in the respective cross sections, taking into account the variation in velocities and creek shape. The design shall take into account existing site conditions including the presence or absence of existing rock and potentially exposed soils at each section of the creek bank. The full length of the creek line within the property shall be assessed and protected with armouring or other suitable measures where natural soils will be exposed to design creek flows. Armouring details shall be designed as per industry best practice guidelines and certified by a chartered civil engineer

(e) To further reduce visual privacy and visual bulk impacts of the driveway structure,

amended plans shall be provided identifying additional timber posts on the eastern side of the driveway.

(f) To ensure consistency, the architectural plans shall be amended to:

(i) be consistent with Drawing No. DA2.01 Revision C Ground Floor Plan with

respect to the pedestrian access on the western side of the driveway; (ii) identify the terrace on the northern side of Dwelling 3 at first floor level.

(g) To minimise visual privacy impacts on adjoining properties the architectural plans

shall be amended as follows:

Dwelling 1 (i) the operable privacy screen at the southern end of the terrace at first floor

level shall be designed so as to not allow a view to the dwelling at 4 Harnett Avenue; and

(ii) the terrace at third floor level shall be fitted with a planter box on its southern side for the width of the terrace.

Dwelling 2

(i) the living room window on the northern elevation at first floor level fitted with a

operable louvred screen shall have a sill height 1.2 metres above the finished floor level. The operable louvred screen for this window shall be retained;


Page 44

(ii) the terrace at third floor level shall be fitted with a planter box on its northern side for the width of the terrace;

(iii) the garden terrace at RL19.85 shall be provided with a planter box on its north eastern side;

(iv) the solid privacy screen on the northern end of the balcony on the eastern elevation at first floor level shall extend the width of the balcony.

Dwelling 3

(i) The solid privacy screen on the northern end of the balcony on the eastern

elevation at first floor level shall extend the width of the balcony; and (ii) Landscaping on the north eastern side of the garden terrace at RL 21.45 shall

have a height at maturity to provide a vegetative screen between the terrace and the properties on the other side of the creek.

(h) The landscape plans shall be amended to:

(i) be consistent with Drawing No. DA2.01 Revision C Ground Floor Plan with

respect to the pedestrian access on the western side of the driveway. (ii) the deletion of the notation ‘mixed plantings below’ with respect to the terrace

on the northern side of Dwelling 3 at first floor level. (iii) include the retention of trees and replacement trees identified on the plan

‘extract from Landscape Plan showing additional trees to be retained’. (i) To minimise solar access impacts on adjoining properties, the architectural plans

shall be amended consistent with sketches SK010, SK011, SK012, SK013 provided of Dwelling No. 1.

Such information shall be submitted within 180 days of the date of this determination. Upon written notification from Council that the above has been satisfied, conditions as listed under Part B of this consent shall apply in addition to other conditions nominated in Council's written notification that arise from the information provided in response to Part A.

APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

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

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Survey Plan Reference 27315 Issue H Sheet 1 of 1

26 August 2009 Higgins Surveyors

Plan of Proposed Subdivision Reference 27315DP

14 October 2009 John T Higgins

Cover Page 14 October 2009 Marchese + Partners International

Site Plan DA1.01 Revision B

26 August 2009 Marchese + Partners International

Ground Floor Plan DA2.01 Revision C

14 October 2009 Marchese + Partners International

First Floor Plan DA2.02 Revision B



Page 45

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Second Floor Plan DA2.03 Revision B


Third Floor Plan DA2.04 Revision B


Roof Plan DA2.05 Revision B


Site Elevation DA3.01 Revision B


Elevations - Dwelling 1 DA3.02 Revision C






Section A – A & B – B DA4.01 Revision B


Section C – C & D – D DA4.02 Revision B


Section E – E DA4.03 Revision B


Detail Plan Section EE & Section FF DA4.04 Revision C


Document title Date of document Prepared by Statement of Environmental Effects

17 April 2009 Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

Letter from Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

25 February 2010 Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

Letter from Marchese + Partners International

22 February 2010 Marchese + Partners International

Waste Management Plan 7 April 2009 Applicant BASIX Certificate 12 October 2009 Applicant Vegetation Management Plan 9 October 2009 Footprint Green Pty Ltd Arboricultural Assessment 28 August 2009 Footprint Green Pty Ltd Letter RE Tree 31 and replacement species

11 August 2009 Footprint Green Pty Ltd

Letter from Footprint Green Pty Ltd

24 February 2010 Footprint Green Pty Ltd

Traffic and Parking Assessment Report

27 March 2009 Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd

Construction Traffic Management Plan

28 March 2009 Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd

Letter from Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd

24 February 2010 Varga Traffic Planning Pty Ltd

Stormwater Drainage Plan Job No. 0808-0045 C02 Issue D

5 November 2009 LHO Group Pty Limited

Letter RE stormwater design 12 October 2009 LHO Group Pty Limited Bushfire Risk Assessment Report

February 2009 Flame Zone Bushfire Consulting

Geotechnical Assessment 31 March 2009 Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd


Page 46

Document title Date of document Prepared by Geotechnical Assessment of Tree 31

5 August 2009 Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd

Letter from Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd

23 February 2010 Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd

Aboriginal Heritage Site Assessment

29 July 2009 and 9 October 2009

Metropolitan Local Aboriginal Land Council

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

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

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

Construction Certificate Application Plans

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

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

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

Geotechnical Endorsement

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

4. A detailed Geotechnical Investigation shall be carried out as recommended in the Geotechnical Assessment carried out by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd dated 31 March 2009 Ref 22707LBrpt. All recommendations arising from this report shall be implemented including but not limited to recommendations regarding: footing and foundation design(s), excavation and site inspection of founding materials.

Support of Adjoining Property 5. A report shall be prepared by a practicing Geotechnical Engineer and submitted to Council

or the Accredited Certifier detailing the structural condition of adjoining structures / property and their ability to withstand the proposed excavation, backfilling and construction. The report must investigate site and soil conditions and outline any recommended measures to ensure that no damage will occur to the structures / property during or subsequent to the carrying out of works.


Page 47

Dilapidation Report – Council Assets

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

Dilapidation Report – Private Assets

7. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining property at 4 Harnett Avenue and 31 Royalist Road which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Excavation, Backfilling and Support for Neighbouring Buildings

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

Retaining Walls

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

Sydney Water

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

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

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

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

Drainage

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


Page 48

Driveway

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

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

14. Details shall be submitted to demonstrate how the proposed access driveway complies with AS 2890.1 with respect to transition grades to/from Harnett Avenue.

Landscape Maintenance Strategy

15. To ensure the survival of landscaping following works, a landscape maintenance strategy for the owner/occupier to administer over a 12 month establishment period following the issue of the Occupation Certificate shall be prepared and provided to Council’s or the Accredited Certifier’s satisfaction with the Construction Certificate Application. The strategy is to address maintenance issues such as plant survival, irrigation, soil testing, weeding, plant staking, fertilising, pest and disease control, replanting, remedial pruning and the like.

BASIX Certificate

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

Long Service Levy

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

Security Deposit

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

Waste Storage Area 19. The waste storage area shall be designed to be of sufficient size to accommodate 4 x 240

litre bins and 3 x 120 litre bins and appropriate circulation space. Details to be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

Fencing 20. No fencing is approved as part of this application.


Page 49

Section 94 Contribution

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

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

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

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

Council Property

22. A Structural Engineer shall certify that plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application provide for the driveway being structurally separate and non reliant on the retaining wall supporting Council’s road and further that the integrity of support for Council’s road will either not be interrupted during site works or will be supplemented where necessary by temporary support, full details of which should be supplied with the application.

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

Works on Council Property 24. A “Works on Council Property” application shall be submitted and approved for the section

of access driveway works within Council property. The applicant should consult with Council’s Manager Assets and Services or an appointed officer regarding the required construction details required.


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

Notes:

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

http://www.mosman.nsw.gov.au/�


Page 50

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

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

PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF SITE WORKS

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

Notice of Intent to Commence Site Works

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

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

(PCA) by way of completing Form 7A (attached at the end of the consent); (iii) in instances where Council is not the PCA, the PCA has, no later than 2 days before

the building work commences, notified Council of his or her appointment by way of forwarding a completed copy of Form 7A and notified the person benefiting from the consent of any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the building work by way of completing Form 7B (attached at the end of this consent). In instances where Council is the PCA, Council has completed Form 7B if necessary and forwarded it to the person benefiting from the consent.

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

a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved; and notified the PCA of any such appointment; and unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor of

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

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

Home Building Act

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

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

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


Page 51

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

Construction Hoarding or Fencing

28. If site or building works will:

cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or unsafe; or

have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects then a temporary hoarding or fence must be erected prior to the commencement of works between the work site and the adjoining area to the following standards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protection of Landscape Features

29. To limit the potential for damage to the trees to be retained, tree protection measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of site works in accordance with:

(a) Tree Protection Measures outlined under ‘Specific Tree Protection Measures During

Construction’ on sheet 12 of 12 (Titled ‘Tree Root Investigation and Design Considerations, Tree Protection Measures and Report Summary’ in the Arboricultural Assessment and Impact of Development on Trees by Footprint Green Pty Ltd dated 28th August 2009 - Tree 2.

(b) Tree Protection Measures as outlined under ‘General Tree Protection Measures

During Construction on sheet 12 of 12 (Titled ‘Tree Root Investigation and Design Considerations, Tree Protection Measures and Report Summary’ in the Arboricultural Assessment and Impact of Development on Trees by Footprint Green Pty Ltd dated 28th August 2009 – Trees 7, 8, 9, 11, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 58.


Page 52

30. The site manager shall be provided with three (3) copies of the vegetation management plan and an onsite meeting discussing the plan and its specifications shall be arranged with the Councils Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape.

31. The bushland located to the east of the site within the road reserve is to be protected and must be fenced prior to the commencement of site works. All fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction works.

32. That all tree protection and sediment control measures are put in place and are in working order and to specification as outlined in the arborist report and vegetation management plan.

Sediment & Erosion Controls

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

Lapsing of Consent if Site Works Not Commenced

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

Public Liability Insurance

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

Protection of Bushland Reserve

36. To control the spread of weeds or exotic seeds into the adjoining bushland reserve, a strip of filter fabric is to be attached to the sediment fence. The filter fabric is to be a minimum of 50mm into the ground and is to extend a minimum of 150mm above ground. The filter fabric is to be securely attached to the entire length of the sediment fence. The build up of sediment against the filter fabric is to be regularly removed to ensure ongoing effectiveness.

DURING SITE WORKS / CONSTRUCTION

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

Aboriginal Relics

37. If any Aboriginal sites or relics are unearthed during any stages of the development then all work should cease and MLALC and Department of Environment and Climate Change shall be notified immediately and all work is to cease.


Page 53

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

Demolition

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

Asbestos Material

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

Signs for Building and Demolition Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Site Work Hours

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

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

Vibration

43. To minimise the risk of damage to adjacent buildings from the use of Hydraulic rock hammers the transmitted vibration shall be monitored during excavation having regard to


Page 54

the Vibration Emission Design Goals contained within the Geotechnical Assessment prepared by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd dated 31 March 2009.

Storage of Materials

44. All materials are to be stored within the boundaries of the property and not within the road reserve.

Geotechnical 45. All relevant works shall be carried out in accordance with all recommendations from the

Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report. All excavations, foundation levels, footing constructions, retaining structures and other relevant elements of the site works shall be inspected by a suitably qualified Geotechnical Engineer to ensure that the works are carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report.


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

Shoring and Adequacy of Adjoining Property

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

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

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

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


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

Dust Control

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

Council Property

51. The land and adjoining areas shall be kept in a clean and tidy condition at all times. No construction vehicles, building materials, waste, machinery or related matter shall be stored


Page 55

on the road or footpath for the duration of works unless separate approval has been obtained from Council’s Traffic Committee for the establishment of a Construction Zone. Under no circumstances will any person be allowed to mix or dispose of concrete, mortar or slurry within Council property.



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

Stormwater 54. Stormwater shall be directed to the creek as per the approved plans. All drainage works

shall be constructed in accordance with Council’s “Stormwater Management in Mosman”. Rainwater Tanks 55. To ensure proper installation of the rainwater re-use tank, all work is to be undertaken in

compliance of Sydney Water’s “Guidelines for Rainwater Tanks in Residential Properties” and “Rainwater Tanks, Information For Plumbers” and the NSW Code of Practice: Plumbing and Drainage. A licensed plumber must supervise all plumbing work.

56. For safety purposes, the tank and the fittings must be labelled ‘RAINWATER, NOT

SUITABLE FOR DRINKING”. 57. To ensure stormwater and drainage objectives continue to be achieved and to promote

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

58. For health reasons, a first-flush-by-pass device must be installed allowing the first 1mm of

initial runoff to bypass the tank. 59. For health reasons, in the occurrence of prolonged periods of rain any overflow from the

rainwater tank should be discharged via an existing stormwater drainage system or to a Council approved device such as an on-site detention system. This pipeline must be covered with an insect proof mesh to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes.

60. Any mechanical equipment associated with the rainwater re-use tank and associated

reticulation system shall be located in a sound proof container and positioned so that there is no increase in noise level at any point on the boundary with another property, including a public place.

61. To ensure no adverse amenity impacts arise from the rainwater tank, the tank shall be

located at ground level, be of a non-reflective colour which is in keeping with surrounding development and have overflow waters piped to Council’s street gutter or other approved stormwater disposal. Household waste waters must not be directed to the rainwater tank.

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


Page 56

Car Parking

62. To ensure reasonable safety and manoeuvrability, all parking dimensions and access aisles must satisfy the requirements of Australian Standards 2890.1-2004 and Council's Transport Development Control Plan including, where applicable, dimensions for any disabled parking spaces.

NB: The Principal Certifying Authority may require a compliance certificate from a qualified architect, engineer or town planner certifying that this condition has been satisfied.

Utility Services

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


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

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

65. To minimise disturbance to the trees to be retained, for the duration of site works the tree protection measures recommended as follows are to be maintained in good order:

(a) Tree Protection Measures as outlined under ‘Specific Tree Protection Measures During Construction’ on sheet 12 of 12 (Titled ‘Tree Root Investigation and Design Considerations, Tree Protection Measures and Report Summary’ in the Arboricultural Assessment and Impact of Development on Trees by Footprint Green Pty Ltd dated 28th August 2009 - Tree 2.

(b) Tree Protection Measures as outlined under ‘General Tree Protection Measures

During Construction on sheet 12 of 12 (Titled ‘Tree Root Investigation and Design Considerations, Tree Protection Measures and Report Summary’ in the Arboricultural Assessment and Impact of Development on Trees by Footprint Green Pty Ltd dated 28th August 2009 – Trees 7, 8, 9, 11, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 58.

66. That all tree protection and sediment control measures remain in working order and to

specification as outlined in the arborist report and vegetation management plan.

67. Quarterly site meetings shall be carried out and include Councils Team Leader Biodiversity and Landscape and the site manager to ensure that the vegetation management plan is being followed and that all performance criteria as outlined in the vegetation management plan are being achieved on the ground.

68. The monitoring reports in regard to works as outlined in the vegetation management plan shall be forwarded to Council two (2) weeks after their completion.


Page 57

Arborist Inspections

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

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

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

term viability of the tree/s. *primary root zone = 10 x Trunk diameter 1400mm from ground level (measured as a radius from the trunk)

Tree Preservation

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

Leighton Green Cypress

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

Landscape Mulch

72. Mulches imported to the site must be derived from native species. Where native vegetation is removed as part of the development, it shall be mulched where possible and used in the final landscaping.

Threatening Process - Phytophthora Root Rot

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

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

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

Association.



Page 58

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

Weeds

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

Fauna 75. To allow for the movement of fauna on the site, the mesh on the eastern side of the

driveway shall be a minimum of 300mm above finished ground level.

BASIX Certificate

76. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated 12 October 2009.

Siting, Height and View Loss

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

No plant or equipment shall be located on the roof of the dwellings.

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

Lighting

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

Toilet Facilities

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

Waste Storage Area

80. For safety, amenity and maintenance reasons, the waste storage area must be constructed to the following standards:

Floors must be constructed of concrete, graded and drained to an approved drainage outlet connected to the sewer and finished to a smooth even trowelled surface;

Walls must be constructed with solid impervious material and shall be cement rendered internally to a smooth even steel trowelled surface;

All intersections between the walls and floors shall be coved with coving having a minimum radius of 25mm;

All entry points into the room must be bunded to prevent the escape of liquid waste. Bunding shall be for 110% of the likely liquid storage waste and constructed in such



Page 59

a manner that does not obstruct the removal of waste receptacles from the room or create a safety risk to users;

Adequate ventilation shall be provided; Adequate lighting shall be provided; The ceiling must have a minimum height of 2.1m from floor level and be finished

with a smooth faced non-absorbent material capable of being easily cleaned; Waste storage areas shall prevent the access of vermin; Waste receptacles used shall be compatible with Mosman Council’s waste collection

service; The door to the storage area shall be weatherproof and shall be openable from the

inside at all times; Hot and cold water hose cocks shall be located inside or within close proximity to

the waste storage areas to facilitate cleaning.

Waste Management

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

Local Government Act 1993

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

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

hoist or tackle projecting over the footway

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

Approved Plans

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

Critical Stage Inspections

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

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

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

being issued in relation to the building.


Page 60

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

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

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

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

Record of Inspections Carried Out

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

The record must include details of:

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

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

who carried it out.

BASIX Certificate

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

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

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

Follow-up Arborist’s Report

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

the methods of excavation or construction used to carry out works;



Page 61

any damage sustained by the tree/s as a result of the works; any subsequent remedial works required to be carried out by the arborist as a result

of the damage; and any future or on-going remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the long

term viability of the tree/s.

Geotechnical 88. Certification shall be provided from a suitably qualified Geotechnical Engineer that all works

have been carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Detailed Geotechnical Investigation Report. Certification shall also be provided regarding the stability of creek bank slopes including newly armoured sections of the banks. Certification shall be based on inspections undertaken during the Construction.

Stormwater 89. Certification shall be provided from a suitably qualified Civil Engineer that all Stormwater

outlet structures and creek armouring work has been carried out as per the approved design(s).

Landscaping

90. Written evidence shall be provided from a suitably qualified person that all reports have been received within the timeframe specified and that all on ground performance criteria as outlined in the vegetation management plan have been achieved and that all trees that were to be retained are healthy.

91. All tree protection fencing shall be removed prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

Street Numbering

92. The premises shall be identified by street numbering. Street numbering for the new lots shall be 2, 2A and 2B Harnett Avenue.

PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE

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

Subdivision

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

Easements, Covenants and Restrictions on Title

94. An easement shall be created under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 as per the details shown on the approved plan of subdivision. Mosman Council shall be identified as the authority able to modify, vary or release the easement. Evidence that the easement has been registered with the Land and Property Information branch of the Department of Lands is to be provided to Council.

95. Reciprocal rights of carriageway and an easement for services shall be created over the access corridor under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919. Mosman Council shall be identified as the authority able to modify, vary or release the easement. Evidence that


Page 62

the reciprocal rights of carriageway and easement for services have been registered with the Land and Property Information branch of the Department of Lands is to be provided to Council.

Sydney Water

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

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

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

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

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION

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

Compliance Certificates and Inspection Records

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

Occupation Certificate

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

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

DURING OCCUPATION

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

Landscape Maintenance

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


Page 63

Landscape Maintenance Strategy

100. To ensure the survival of landscaping following work, the owner occupier is to implement the landscape maintenance strategy submitted with the Construction Certificate Application for a 12 month period following the release of the Occupation Certificate.

Noxious Weeds

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

Acoustic

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

Amenity 103. In order to protect night time amenity for surrounding properties, any light installed must

avoid glare and light spill onto adjoining recreation spaces, habitable rooms and public places.

104. To ensure reasonable acoustic amenity for surrounding properties is maintained, there shall be no fixed external speakers installed.

NSW RURAL FIRE SERVICE

The following conditions have been recommended by the NSW Rural Fire service. 105. The development proposal is to comply with the subdivision layout identified on the drawing

prepared by Higgins Surveyors numbered 27315, dated 26 August 2009.

Asset Protection Zones The intent of measures is to provide sufficient space and maintain reduced fuel loads so as to ensure radiant heat levels of buildings are below critical limits and to prevent direct flame contact with a building. 106. At the issue of subdivision certificate and in perpetuity the entire property up to the riparian

corridor shall be managed as an inner protection area (IPA) as outlined within section 4.1.3 and Appendix 5 of ‘Planning for Bush Fire Protection 2006’ and the NSW Rural Fire Service’s document ‘Standards for asset protection zones’.

Access The intent of measures for property access is to provide safe access to/from the public road system for fire fighters providing property protection during a bush fire and for occupants faced with evacuation. 107. To aid in fire fighting activities, unobstructed pedestrian access to the rear of all properties

shall be provided and is to be maintained at all times.



Page 64

Design and Construction The intent of measures is that buildings are designed and constructed to withstand the potential impacts of bush fire attack. 108. Roofing shall be gutterless or guttering and valleys are to be screened to prevent the build

up of flammable material. Any materials used shall have a Flammability Index of no greater than 5 when tested in accordance with Australian Standard AS1530.2-1993 ‘Methods for Fire Tests on Building Materials, Components and Structures – Test for Flammability of Materials’.

109. New construction shall comply with Australian Standard AS3959-1999 ‘Construction of buildings in bush fire-prone areas’ Level 1.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND WATER NSW The following conditions are the General Terms of Approval issued by the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW Plans, standards and guidelines 110. These General Terms of Approval (GTA) only apply to the controlled activities described in

the plans and associated documentation relating to 8.2009.103.1 and provided by Council:

(i) Site plan, map and/or surveys (ii) Structural design and specifications (iii) Vegetation Management Plan (iv) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (v) Stormwater Drainage Plan Any amendments or modifications to the proposed controlled activities may render these GTA invalid. If the proposed controlled activities are amended or modified the NSW Office of Water must be notified to determine if any variations to these GTA will be required.

111. Prior to the commencement of any controlled activity (works) on waterfront land, the

consent holder must obtain a Controlled Activity Approval (CAA) under the Water Management Act from the NSW Office of Water. Waterfront land for the purposes of this DA is land and material in or within 40 metres of the top of the bank or shore of the river identified.

112. The consent holder must prepare or commission the preparation of:

(i) Outlet Structure Plan (ii) Amendments to Vegetation Management Plan - identifying the current attributes of

the site (total area, area requiring rehabilitation, etc); the specific maintenance milestones required (final percentage of native survival, percentage of weed species, etc); specific timing for the different aspects of the maintenance program, equipment and man-power; number and density of plantings; the costing for all aspects of the VMP, etc.

(iii) Amendments to Construction Management & Sediment Control Plan – the temporary storage areas shown in the plan must be removed and place outside of the proposed riparian corridor.

113. All plans must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and submitted to the NSW Office

of Water for approval prior to any controlled activity commencing. Plans must be prepared


Page 65

in accordance with the NSW Office of Water guidelines located at www.dwe.nsw.gov.au/water_trade/rights_controlled.shtml

(i) Vegetation Management Plans (ii) Riparian Corridors (iii) Outlet structures

114. The consent holder must (i) carry out any controlled activity in accordance with approved plans and (ii) construct and/or implement any controlled activity by or under the direct supervision of a suitably qualified professional and (iii) when required, provide a certificate of completion to the NSW Office of Water.

Rehabilitation and maintenance 115. The consent holder must carry out a maintenance period of two (2) years after practical

completion of all controlled activities, rehabilitation and vegetation management in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

116. The consent holder must reinstate waterfront land affected by the carrying out of any controlled activity in accordance with a plan or design approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Reporting requirements 117. The consent holder must use a suitably qualified person to monitor the progress,

completion, performance of works, rehabilitation and maintenance and report to the NSW Office of Water as required.

Security deposits 118. The consent holder must provide a security deposit (bank guarantee or cash bond) - equal

to the sum of the cost of complying with the obligations under any approval - to the NSW Office of Water as and when required.

Accessways 119. The consent holder must not locate ramps, stairs, accessways, cycle paths, pedestrian

paths or any other non-vehicular form of access way in a riparian corridor other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Culvert 120. The consent holder must ensure that no materials or cleared vegetation that may obstruct

flow, wash into the water body or cause damage to river banks are left on waterfront land other than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Drainage and Stormwater 121. The consent holder must stabilise drain discharge points to prevent erosion in accordance

with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

Erosion control 122. The consent holder must establish all erosion and sediment control works and water

diversion structures in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

http://www.dwe.nsw.gov.au/water_trade/rights_controlled.shtml�


Page 66

These works and structures must be inspected and maintained throughout the working period and must not be removed until the site has been fully stabilised.

Excavation 123. The consent holder must ensure that no excavation is undertaken on waterfront land other

than in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

River bed and bank protection 124. The consent holder must clearly mark (with stakes using a GPS or peg out survey), protect

and maintain a riparian corridor with a width of five (5) metres measured horizontally landward from the highest bank of the river for the length of the site directly affected by the controlled activity in accordance with a plan approved by the NSW Office of Water.

ADVICE / NOTES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

telecommunications infrastructure.

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

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


Page 67

Inspections” in this consent. If additional inspections are required, further notice will be provided.

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

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

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

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

(xi) To ensure adequate waste receptacles are provided prior to the occupation of the development Mosman Council Waste Services shall be contacted on Ph. 9978 4076 or [email protected].

COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS A4 Plans

mailto:[email protected]�


Page 68

EP/36 37 Rangers Avenue

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.197.1

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising of ground floor extensions, a first floor addition, new double garage with attached carport, swimming pool and landscaping

REPORTING OFFICER: Danielle Dunford, Executive Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 23 July 2009 (Downtime 29 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions

LOCALITY MAP

A

SP 8031

SP 6

DP 25

41

DP 3

DP

390

9

3

SP 5709

SP 356

SP 10470

SP

13098

SP

12580

SP

DP 2509

A

A36

B

37

D

P

4341

19

DP

250

9

3

27

DP 4417

2

DP 220739

393831

DP 3909

3

351

DP

527

332

DP

748

726

DP

923

699

342 1

1

DP

100

1623

DP

510

175

A

1

D

P

7488

42

3839

2

79

1331

1

1

D

P

567

650

21AB

D

P

442

091

DP

452

778

DP

926

489

7

DP 35

DP 656578

DP

653850

2

C

D

DP 364088

DP

666713

1

DP 7520671211

D P

666712

7

2

12726

DP

232

711

SP

37107

DP

505

866

2

111 D

P 1

6747

1

DP

924

196

DP

924

952

DP

925

217

F

17071

G

B21A

D

P

440

546

D

P50

723

0

2

8182838485

DP 3909

1

DP

900

475

DP

908

067

DP

927

344

DP 3909

2

DP

663

535

80

751178D D

90

225

BA31

B

D

P

444

008

DP 931090

DP

39

093

D

630

65

86878812

D

A1918

D

P

4423

92

1

11

SP

30405

2

2524232221

1DP 217509

DP 2509

A

16

10

2

2

1

DP 357335

DP 836297

DP 932831

A

C20DB

D

P

3962

37

B

D P780304

D

P

5240

02

43 1

D

P

5022

11

3987

DP 2509

B7

A

4393

38

30 28 26 24

1

29 27 25 23 21A 21

4038 36

42

34 32

36A

2123

19

17

30

32

34-36

28

2

11

6

6A

4

35 33A31

29 27

10

4

19

2523

21

17 15 13

31

41 39 37 35 33

43

4652

56 54 50 4844

33B

33

37

47 45 43 41 39

35

12

39

43

55 53 51 49 47 45

58

687066 64 62 60

49

55 53 51

8

8

10 8A 8

82 80 78 76 74 72

57

65 63 61 59

67

12

1 59 57

14 10A

6

1

7

7A

9

84

RANGERS

BA

RD

WE

LL

LANE (M71)

ST

AVE

HOLT AVENUE


Page 69

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal seeks approval for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising of ground floor extensions, a first floor addition, a new double garage with attached carport, swimming pool and landscaping works. The proposal does not comply with the building height standard and hence a variation under SEPP 1 has been submitted. The proposal also does not comply with Council’s landscaped area control. Two objections have been received, including one relating to view loss. The extent of view loss is assessed as minor and in the circumstances of the case, reasonable. The proposal is assessed to be reasonable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions. UPDATE TO REPORT Council considered EP/22 – 37 Rangers Avenue at the meeting of 16 February 2010 where it was resolved as follows: That the application be deferred pending a further inspection of the site to clarify the rear building alignment of the development. Further, that the applicant be invited to review the configuration of the first floor addition to reduce its northern rearward extension. In response to Council’s resolution the applicant has undertaken to stake-out on site, the rear alignment of the dwelling for inspection. No submission has been received in relation to the invitation to review the first floor plan.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the northern side of Rangers Avenue, between Spofforth Street and Cowles Road. The site is irregular in shape with a curved frontage of approximately 13m to Rangers Avenue and 12.8m to Bloxsome Lane. The site falls approximately 5m from Bloxsome Avenue to Rangers Avenue at an average gradient of 5%. There is a further 3m drop to the road reserve of Rangers Avenue. There is a 3m wide drainage easement traversing the site, approximately 16m from the northern boundary. The site presently contains a single storey Federation style cottage. There is a triple carport fronting Bloxsome Lane and various metal sheds and outbuildings. Pedestrian access is available from Rangers Avenue via a concrete path and stairs, partly located in the road reserve and partly on the site itself. Surrounding development consists of detached dwelling houses. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities Yes


Page 70

Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND The development history of the site has been researched, there is no background information of particular relevance to this application. Subject Application: On 19 November 2009, Council requested additional information from the applicant to address issues associated with height, roof design and landscaped area. Amended plans were subsequently lodged on 17 December 2009. The amended plans are the subject of this report. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal (as amended) consists of: Demolition of the existing studio, bedroom, laundry and outbuildings; Ground floor alterations and additions; Second storey addition containing four bedrooms, bathroom and study; Demolition of the existing triple carport and construction of a new double garage with attached

single carport; Construction of an in-ground swimming pool; and Landscaping works. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning Residential 2(b)

Site Area 300m2 1169m2 N/A


Page 71

LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Building Height 8.5m 8.7m No (SEPP 1)

Wall Height 7.2m 6.6m Yes

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area

Existing 144m2 N/A

Proposed 193m2 N/A

Total 337.5m2 N/A


Landscaped Area (146% of GFA)

Existing 210m2 468m2 N/A

Proposed 551m2 548m2 No


Setbacks

Front

Rear (garage/carport)

Ground floor - east

First floor - east

Ground floor - west

First floor - west

Swimming Pool – east

Established pattern

Established pattern

0.9m

1.5m

0.9m

1.5m

2m

30m

2.7m

1.01m

2.2m

1.7m

1.7m

2m

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Parking

Garage / Carport Width

On merit

5.1m

3 spaces

10m

Yes

No

Fencing Height 1.2m 1.2m (existing) Yes

Solar access to living and main private open space areas

2 hours between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm

> 2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) has been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 prescribes a maximum building height of 8.5 metres for a building on land zoned residential 2(b). The height of the proposed development is 8.7m as measured from the ridge of the new roof to the ground level below. It therefore does not comply with the development standard for building height.


Page 72

Objectives The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views

The part of the building that exceeds the maximum building height standard will have a negligible affect on views. This issue will be discussed in section 3.1.

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

foreshores

The proposal will not be readily visible from the harbour and surrounding foreshore. (c) to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing buildings

in terms of height and pitched roof form

The proposal will maintain compatibility with the varied height and pitched roof form of dwelling houses on the northern side of Rangers Avenue. The design of the new roof will complement the Federation style and character of the existing dwelling.

(d) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in existing residential areas The impacts of bulk and scale are minimised by positioning the bulk of the addition on the northern side of the existing ridgeline where it will be less visible from the street. The proposal will not result in any unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties.

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

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims.


Page 73

5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(b). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development does satisfy zone objectives. Height See discussion in section 5.2.1 Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.43:1 which is substantially less than the maximum permissible FSR for this site of 0.55:1. The proposal also satisfies the underlying objectives of the FSR development standard contained in clause 14 of the MLEP 1998. Landscaped Area The amount of soft landscaping required by clause 15 of the MLEP 1998 is 551m2 whereas the proposed landscaped area is 548m2 and is therefore deficient by 3m2. The amount of soft landscaping proposed on site will be 80m2 less than existing. While the landscaping proposed is slightly below the numerical requirement, the landscaping is consistent with the objectives of Clause 15 of Mosman LEP 1998. A landscape plan has been submitted with the application, detailing the planting of numerous native trees, shrubs and other plants. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is located in Council’s Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The impact of the proposed development on the natural environment, the visual environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman has been assessed as satisfactory. The proposed development will be satisfactory in terms of height, bulk and scale when viewed from the waterway, public domain, foreshores and bushland areas. The proposal satisfies the objectives of clause 27.


Page 74

Excavation Some minor excavation is proposed for the pool in the rear yard. Overall the objective of Clause 31, that is, to control soil erosion, sedimentation, tree loss and drainage impacts associated with land form modification is satisfied. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item. The Holt Estate Conservation Area is located to the north of the site, on the opposite side of Bloxsome Lane. The proposed development will not impact on the heritage significance of this area. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The siting and scale of the proposed development, comprising of height, floor space ratio and setbacks, are satisfactory. Height and floor space have been addressed previously in this report. The proposed works to the dwelling house generally maintain the existing building footprint and in this regard, setbacks to boundaries are acceptable. It is also proposed to construct a double garage with an attached single carport fronting Bloxsome Lane. The parking structure has a setback of 0.4m to the eastern boundary and is located in the same location as the existing triple carport. This is consistent with planning guideline P7 which allows a nil setback where there will be minimal impact on adjoining properties and where walls do not contain windows (a condition of consent will require the deletion of the windows in the western elevation of the garage). Overall, the building form is compatible with the prevailing development pattern and character in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard for objectives and guidelines at section 4.2 of the MRDCP. Views Section 4.3 of the RDCP encourages view sharing as expressed in the following two objectives:

O2. To have the value of existing views from private dwellings recognised and encourage view sharing through building design, location and landscape design

O3. To have sharing of views whilst not restricting the reasonable development potential of a site.


Page 75

In this clause a reference to views is a reference to water views and views of significant landmarks. The subject site and surrounding properties enjoy views toward the city. The property located on the opposite side of Bloxsome Lane, i.e. No 46 Holt Avenue, has made a submission regarding view loss. This property currently enjoys a view of part of the city-east skyline and very small glimpses of the harbour. As indicated in the photograph below, the view is distant with a few high-rise buildings distinguishable (including the Harry Seidler designed Horizon Apartments) with barely discernible glimpses of the harbour. The view is assessed as distant and limited.

Photograph 1: Existing view from No.46 Holt Avenue over the triple garage and existing dwelling on the subject site. The views from No 46 Holt Avenue are enjoyed from the open plan kitchen and living rooms on the first floor level over the rear boundary. The views are enjoyed from both standing and sitting positions. The proposed development will result in the loss of a significant portion of this already limited view. All of the water glimpses and most of the view of the city skyline will be lost. The applicant was asked to consider whether a more skilful design could provide the same development potential and amenity while reducing the impact on the views of neighbours (in accordance with the Planning Principle for view loss handed down in the Land and Environment Court). Consequently, amended plans were lodged which replaced the west facing gable with a hipped roof, enabling a small view corridor to the west of the main ridge. It is noted that the non-complying building height is located at the southern end of the new roof (due to the sloping site) and compliance with building height at this part of the roof would make no difference to the view impacts on No 46 Holt Avenue as it is primarily the building height at the northern end that is resulting in view loss. Given that the proposed development complies with Council’s development standards in relation to FSR, boundary setbacks, number of storeys, wall height and building height (except for a minor


Page 76

non-compliance) and that the roof design has been amended to minimise view impacts, the view impact is assessed as acceptable. Planning guideline P3 of section 4.3 acknowledges that “in some cases, reasonable development may result in the loss of some views, but development must not significantly obstruct views.” When assessed against this criteria the impact of the proposal on the views from No.46 Holt Avenue is acceptable in that the view is a side view over part of the subject site where two storey development is reasonably anticipated and that the proposed development is largely compliant. The retention of the view in question would unreasonably restrict the development potential of the subject site. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed development preserves the existing roof at the front of the dwelling and sets the addition back toward the rear of the dwelling. The proposal is compatible with the character and scale of existing and surrounding dwellings. The built form of the proposed development employs numerous techniques including stepped setbacks, a variety of materials and well modulated facades, to minimise the bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling. The roof form has been designed to match the pitch of the existing Federation roof and incorporates both gable and hipped roof sections. The design also includes balconies, bay windows and covered terraces all of which create visual interest. A condition of consent is recommended requiring that materials and finishes be complimentary to the character and streetscape of the area. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the objectives and planning guidelines relating to streetscape and building design. Privacy Adequate spatial separation is provided between habitable room windows and neighbouring properties. The proposed development achieves adequate privacy levels with surrounding dwellings and is consistent with the objectives and planning guidelines for privacy as contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that there will be additional shadowing impacts from the proposed development to No 39 Rangers Avenue at 9am and to No 35 Rangers Avenue at 3pm. However, the proposal satisfies the requirements of MRDCP in that north-facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings will not have sunlight reduced to less than 2 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Carparking and Access Three car parking spaces have been provided in the form of a double garage and attached carport. The 10m width of the proposed car parking structure does not comply with planning guideline P10 which requires that the garage not exceed 40% of the block frontage (i.e. 5.12m). Given that the garage replaces an existing triple space carport and that its design replicates the design of the dwelling, the width of the garage is acceptable in this instance. The siting and scale of the garage is consistent with the streetscape character of Bloxsome Lane and will not dominate the proposed dwelling.


Page 77

Swimming Pool The proposed swimming pool satisfies the 2m boundary setback requirement and the requirement for swimming pools to be at or below ground level. Overall, the proposed swimming pool satisfies the objectives of Section 7.4 of MRDCP in that there will be minimal impacts on adjoining properties, it has been appropriately located for visual and aural privacy. Recommended conditions of consent will address safety, lighting and noise impacts associated with the pool. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Belmont townscape. The proposal is consistent with the desired future character objectives for that locality. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Development Engineer raised no objection subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 6 August 2009 and 21 August 2009. Four submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 46 Holt Avenue; and 35 Rangers Avenue. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: The proposed second floor addition will result in the loss of harbour and city views from No

46 Holt Avenue. Comment: View loss is discussed in section 5.3.1. The proposal will result in the overshadowing of the office, sunroom, courtyard and tennis

court belonging to No 35 Rangers Avenue. Comment: Overshadowing is discussed in section 5.3.1. The proposed development is of excessive height, bulk and scale and is inconsistent with

the general amenity of the area;


Page 78

Comment: The amended plans have reduced the building height by 600mm. Given the substantial size of the subject allotment, the bulk and scale of the proposed development are assessed as reasonable. The proposed development will result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the

residents of No 35 Rangers Avenue. Comment: The proposal will not result in any unacceptable privacy impacts. The proposed development will result in unacceptable glare from glazed roof tiles. Comment: A recommended condition of consent will require that the finished external surface materials be non-reflective.

8.0 CONCLUSION While the proposal results in numerical non-compliance with building height and landscaped area requirements of Mosman LEP 1998 the objectives of these provisions are met. The siting and scale of the proposed development is reasonable, given the context of the site. The proposal has addressed view sharing objectives. The proposal is recommended for approval with conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Peter Martin. The owners are Peter and Hazel Martin. The estimated value of works is $1,504,000. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services recommends that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the maximum height limit within Clause 13 of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons: (a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard; (b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the site, and

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

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



Page 79

B. That Development Application No. 8.2009.197.1 be approved subject to the following conditions:



Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by DEC 01/09 pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13

December 2009 W.P. O'Brien & Co

Survey Plan 15356 19 March 2008 Bee & Lethbridge Pty Ltd Landscape Plan L0338 Issue B

17 July 2009 hortus design pty ltd

Stormwater Concept Plan 2009.071/H1

June 2009 Burgess Arnott & Grava P/L


20 July 2009 W.P O'Brien & Co

BASIX 20 July 2009 Department of Planning Plan Amendments – garage

2. In order to comply with the requirements of planning guideline P7 of section 4.2 of Council’s Residential Development Control Plan, the windows in the eastern elevation of the garage are to be deleted. Details are to be included on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.









Page 80





5. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining properties at 39 Rangers Avenue and 35 Rangers Avenue which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on those properties. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.



Retaining Walls


Rainwater Re-use System/On-site Detention

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

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


Page 81

Sydney Water





Driveway

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

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

Materials & Finishes

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

Long Service Levy


Security Deposit



Page 82

















Home Building Act

17. 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



Page 83

relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following information:





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

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

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












Page 84









Demolition

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

Asbestos Material










Page 85


Site Work Hours












Council Property

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



Page 86

Utility Services

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

Driveway

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

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

Drainage

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

Rainwater Re-Use System

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Page 87




Tree Preservation




BASIX Certificate

47. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated July 20, 2009.




Swimming Pools & Outdoor Spas

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

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

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



Page 88

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

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

Air Conditioning Units

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

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans





and prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, and prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and


Page 89

after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate being issued in relation to the building.

after the construction of the swimming pool is completed and the barrier (if one is required under the Swimming Pools Act 1992) has been erected and before the pool is filled with water

after excavation for, and before the placement of, any footings











who carried it out.

BASIX Certificate







Page 90

On-Site Detention/Rainwater Re-use System

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

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

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

The terms of the positive covenant shall read:

(i) In this Positive Covenant “detention system or rainwater re-use system” shall mean the detention system or rainwater re-use system approved by Mosman Council pursuant to Development Consent No. 8.2009.197.1 or any modification thereof approved by Mosman Council in writing.

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

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

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

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


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


Page 91

64. For safety reasons, the spa pool must be covered or secured when not in use by a child-safe structure (such as a door, lid, grille or mesh) that is fastened to the spa pool by a child-resistant device.

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES









encroachment within transmission line easements;


Page 92

Telstra, Optus or other telecommunication carriers for access to their telecommunications infrastructure.


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







Page 93

EP/37 674 Military Road (Brothel)

DA NUMBER: 8.1999.74.3

PROPOSAL: Modification of consent comprising changes to the hours of operation and the internal layout of the premises

REPORTING OFFICER: Sarah Winnacott, Executive Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 22 October 2009 (Downtime 63 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

LOCALITY MAP

1

7

1

11

112113

42

DP

512

615

DP 5287

DP 950240

SP 6

2

C

1

12

1

11

A

DP

383

892

DP

392

176

DP

523

272

DP 537389

61

4 6

D P217813

DP

440

424

B

13212

B

A

211

514

DP

219

883

1

1

3

6

SP

506

58

DP

599

894D

P60

0250

DP

804

01

DP

973

889

D

P

7162

39

DP 556390

DP

5525

56

1

10

2

1D

P 3

174

DP 655032

2

116

14

1

17

7252

1001

7

213

62

SP 60137

SP 60138

SP

731

42

1

4

1

1051

DP

247

58

DP

247

58

1

11

DP 549230

D P

558093

DP

561

211

DP 574676

DP 577888

DP 707966

DP 734781

SP

7

DP 838594

DP

11140

DP

550

538

2

1D P805982

DP

805

982

SP

383

79

SP

656

73

DP

543

232

DP

598

836

DP 600359

DP

605

690

DP

831

434

DP 1093293

SP 20029

212

2

SP

496

02

27

DP 3994

36

6

DP

317

4

DP 550535

DP 656533

DP 544930

D

P

6026

48D

P63

3329

D

P

8136

24

SP

134

1

DP

841

321

2

28

1

5

D P

209234

DP 209234

6

301

28

29

29

DP 540765

15

114

DP 206365

DP 3994

32

121

4

120

22

SP

DP 654576

DP 656528

5

191

6

10 1 311 9

711

DP 132994DP 666689

DP 524689

DP

540

296

1

3

1

7

573

585

8890

1-3

601-611

710

5

613

18

587

601-611

597

589

591

593

706710

710

19

7

7

23

7 20

11 - 17

1350

700

690

692

694696

682

573

674676

678

581

684

686

583

32

3

3A

5

2628

30

3436

38

42

46

571

668

668

668

670

672

22

1618 20

22 24

557

559

561

563

565 567

2 - 68 10

8

12 14

3

0

5

555

555

555

656 658

HORSNELL

CLIFFSPIT

MILITARYST

HORDERN

BR

AD

Y

LN

CIV

IC

ROAD

ROAD


Page 94

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A brothel was approved on the upper level of 674 Military Road by the Land and Environment Court in 1999. This modification of consent seeks changes to the approved hours of operation and authorisation of internal works that have been undertaken without development consent. Twelve (12) submissions have been received raising various concerns with the application. All submissions raise objection to the proposed extension to the hours of operation. This assessment has found that the proposal will have unreasonable amenity impacts on adjoining properties in terms of the hours proposed being not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the northern side of Military Road, between Civic Lane and Spit Junction. The site presently contains a two storey building with two shops at ground floor level and a brothel at first floor level. Surrounding development consists of primarily two storey mixed residential/commercial buildings. A multi storey residential flat building is located to the north east of the site. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND Development application 8.1999.74.1 for the use of the premises as a brothel and the holding of swingers parties at 674 Military Road was refused by Council on 6 July 1999 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not provide sufficient off-street parking in accordance with Mosman’s Off Street Parking Code.

2. The proposal impacts on the amenity of residential dwellings and public places within the vicinity of the site because of its hours of operation, traffic generation, noise and number of employees and clients on the premises.

3. The entrance to the premises is adjacent to the waiting area of a public bus stop. 4. The proposed spa does not comply with the Swimming Pools/Spa Pools/Baths and Water

Features Development Control Plan No 4 in terms of height, setback and noise.


Page 95

5. The proposal does not comply with the Building Code of Australia in terms of exit travel distances, dimension of exit and disabled access.

6. In view of the number of submissions received the proposal is not in the public interest. Following this refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court. On 8 December 1999 the Land and Environment Court granted consent to a brothel at the subject premises subject to conditions. Building Certificate 4.2004.123.1 was issued for the first floor of 674 Military Road on 16 December 2004. A review of Council records has identified that four (4) complaints have been made regarding noise/disturbance/fears for safety since the operation of the brothel commenced. 2.1 BACKGROUND TO APPLICATION Modification of consent application 8.1999.74.3 for extension of the hours of operation was lodged on 22 October 2009. The application was notified between 2 November 2009 and 17 November 2009. As part of the assessment of this application, an inspection of the premises was undertaken on 18 November 2009. This inspection identified that the operation of the premises was not being carried out in accordance with the development approved by the Land and Environment Court, with building alterations having been undertaken without the consent of Council. On 7 December 2009 Council wrote to the applicant advising that the operation of the premises was not being carried out in accordance with the court issued consent. The Applicant was asked to remedy the unauthorised works. The applicant has responded and now seeks to remedy the unauthorised works by including the revised internal layout as part of the current application. The applicant has provided a plan of the revised internal layout. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of an extension of the hours of operation. The hours of operation approved by the Land and Environment Court are:

Monday to Thursday 11.00am – 10.00pm Friday and Saturday 11.00am to 12 midnight Sunday No operation

The proposed hours of operation are:

Monday to Sunday (seven days) 10.00am – 3.00am No change is proposed to the number of sex workers or clients who may gather at the premises. The proposal also includes the revised layout as identified on the ‘new floor plan’ undated and prepared for Irinco Pty Ltd. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993.


Page 96

4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 96AA and 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94 Contributions Plan – Public Car Parking in the Spit Junction Town Centre Public Domain Improvement Program for Mosman and Spit Junctions 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.1.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. There is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.1.3 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 3(a1) Spit Junction. The use of the premises is defined as a brothel and is permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 16. The development is not contrary to the zone objectives. The works are also permitted pursuant to section 96AA of the Act, it being noted that:


Page 97

(a) the development remains substantially the same as that for which consent was originally granted;

(b&c) the application was notified in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP, including notice to each person who previously made a submission;

(d) submissions received have been addressed at section 7.0 of this report; and (e) the original application did not involve threatened species. Floorspace ratio and Height No change is proposed to the existing floorspace ratio and height as part of this modification application. Brothels Clause 20(1) of MLEP 1998 requires that when considering an application for consent to the use of premises for the purpose of a brothel, the Council must consider the following:

(a) the distance between the premises and any place of worship, school, community facility, residential development, hospital or medical centre or any place in the vicinity of the premises regularly frequented by children for any reason; The judgement in the matter of The Turnbull Group Pty Limited ats Mosman Council dealt with the location of the premises. Commissioner Bly considered the location of the premises with regard to its proximity to sensitive land uses and found the location of the premises to be reasonable.

(b) Whether the operation of the brothel could cause a disturbance in the neighbourhood, taking into account the location of any other brothels operating in the neighbourhood;

The proposed extension to the hours of operation of the brothel will result in disturbances within the neighbourhood as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses.

(c) Whether sufficient off-street parking will be provided;

The judgement in the matter of The Turnbull Group Pty Limited ats Mosman Council dealt with the issue of car parking. Commissioner Bly considered the non-compliance of the development with the minimum carparking requirement and found that subject to the payment of a S94 contribution, the use of the premises as a brothel was reasonable. Under the provisions of Mosman Transport Development Control Plan, the minimum parking requirement for brothels is determined by the gross floor area of the premises. As the gross floor area of the premises is not proposed to be altered as part of this application, there is no requirement to provide additional parking.

(d) Whether the brothel will be accessed by a separate entrance;

Separate entries are provided for the ground and first floor uses. (e) Whether the operation of the brothel would interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood

because of its size, operating hours, traffic generation, lighting or noise or the number of its employees and clients; The proposed extension to the hours of operation of the brothel will interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses.


Page 98

(f) Whether the operations of the brothel will utilise circulation areas common to any other use of the premises; As discussed at (d) above, separate entries are provided for the ground and first floor uses. The brothel does not utilise circulation areas common to any other use of the premises.

With respect to clause (20) (2) and (3) of MLEP 1998 the brothel is located on the first floor of the premises and no part of the allotment is used for residential purposes. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is not located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used predominately for commercial purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated and no excavation is proposed, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item. The site is within the Military Road Heritage Conservation Area. As no changes are proposed to the built form, the proposal will have a reasonable impact on the significance of the heritage conservation area. 5.1.4 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The use of the premises is defined as a sex service premises and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item however is within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. Clause 6.6 of Draft MLEP 2008 provides that development consent must not be granted for development for the purposes of sex services premises if the premises will be located:

(a) on land that adjoins, or that is separated only by a road from, land: (i) in Zone R2 Low Density Residential or Zone R3 Medium Density Residential, or (ii) used for community, school or church uses, or (iii) in Zone RE1 Public Recreation, or

(b) in a building that contains one or more dwellings, unless the part of the building used for sex services premises can only be accessed by a separate entrance that does not have access to other parts of the building.

Whilst development consent has already been issued for the use of the brothel, it is of note that the premises would not meet the criteria established in Clause 6.6 of Draft MLEP 2008 as the premises is located on the opposite side of Military Road from land that is zoned 5(a) Community Centre.


Page 99

As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan (MBCDCP) Desired Character As no changes are proposed to the built form, the proposed development is consistent with the desired character statements for the Spit Junction Town Centre. Arterial business centres and traditional shop front terraces The height, floorspace ratio, setbacks, awnings and roof form of the existing development are not proposed to be altered as part of this application. The visual appearance of the development when viewed from the street will not be altered from the existing development. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item. The site is within the Military Road Heritage Conservation Area. As no changes are proposed to the built form, the proposal will have a reasonable impact on the significance of the heritage conservation area. Accessibility No changes are proposed as part of this modification application that will affect the accessibility of the premises from the development that was approved by the Land and Environment Court. Advertisements and business signs No change is proposed to the existing signage. Retail displays No retail displays are proposed. Food establishments and outdoor dining No food establishments or outdoor dining is proposed as part of this application. Privacy and security MBCDCP requires that brothels must not impact on the amenity of adjacent and neighbouring properties in terms of privacy and noise at all times. The proposed extension to the hours of operation of the brothel will impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses. The proposed changes to the internal layout remove the reception area from within the premises. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the operation of the brothel will be conducted in the absence of a reception area. It is noted condition of consent No. 3 requires that no activities associated with the use shall be undertaken on the rear terrace or the front terrace. At the time of inspection the rear terrace was being used for activities associated with the brothel, contrary to the development consent.


Page 100

Energy efficiency and solar access No changes are proposed that would affect energy efficiency or solar access. Telecommunication facilities and services No change is proposed to telecommunication facilities and services as part of this application. Site management and excavation No building works are proposed that would generate the need for conditions relating to site management and excavation. Stormwater management No change is proposed to the existing stormwater management system as part of this application. Ongoing waste management and demolition and construction waste No change is proposed to the existing waste management system. No building works are proposed that would generate demolition or construction waste. 5.2.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) Under the provisions of Mosman Transport Development Control Plan, the minimum parking requirement for brothels is determined by the gross floor area of the premises. As the gross floor area of the premises is not proposed to be altered, there is no requirement to provide additional parking as part of this application. 5.2.3 Mosman Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2006 As part of the approval the applicant was required to provide a contribution in lieu of the provision of on site car parking. No further contribution is required to be paid. 5.2.4 Public Domain Improvement Program for Mosman and Spit Junctions The pavement in font of the shop has been upgraded in accordance with the improvement program. There is no requirement for further upgrading works under the improvement program. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations were taken into account with the original approval and dealt with by conditions of consent. The proposed modification does not necessitate change to any of these matters. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Building Surveyor has raised no objection to the development from a building perspective. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has provided conditions of consent that would in the event the application was approved ensure the premises are operating in accordance with current health standards for brothels.


Page 101

The Commander of the Harbourside Command (NSW Police) has provided the following comments:

“NSW Police - COPS indices indicate the brothel has not been the subject of any adverse Police report in the past two years. The owner of the brothel is M/s Herminia Caley of 59 Sherbrook Road, Hornsby who is a director of Irinco Pty Ltd which is trading at the location as Mosman Beauties Club. It was stated that two women work at the parlour between 10am and midnight Monday to Saturday, excluding Sunday and it does not trade on designated public holidays. On 17 November 2009 Detective Inspector Monk of Harbourside LAC visited the subject premises. It was observed that the premises was well fortified with steel barred windows and doors, however the C.C.T.V security system only displayed somewhat fuzzy images with no recording facility. From an Occupational Health and Safety perspective this was believed to be inadequate given that the history of the sex industry to attract serious crime, particularly assaults and robbery to its doorstep.”

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 2 November 2009 and 17 November 2009. Twelve (12) submissions were received from or on behalf of the following properties: 672 Military Road; 529 Military Road; 521 Military Road; 4-7 Clifford Street; 9/12 Clifford Street; Three (3) submissions from different owners in the residential units at 23 Clifford Street; 15/11 Clifford Street; 42A Harbour Street; 31/2 Brady Street; and 1 Field Way. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: The proposed hours represent a substantial increase to the existing trading hours and are

excessive and not consistent with the trading hours of other businesses in the area; The brothel is located in a residential area and is located near schools, a children’s learning

centre and a family shopping centre and as such the proposed hours should be rejected; The existing trading hours are unsuitable and should be restricted rather than being

extended; The proposed extended hours should be rejected by Council outright; The proposal to extend trading hours will lead to an increase in noise and activity as

patrons are entering and leaving the premises; The brothel is in a direct line of site from the balconies of a residential unit block at 23

Clifford Street and sound travels easily from the premises to the units especially during the quieter hours of the night. The proposed hours will reduce the suitability of these units as residences;

The owners of 672 Military Road have indicated that their residential unit is already affected by noise and people banging on the door by mistake with the existing hours of operation;

Nearby property owners have identified that it is difficult to secure tenants as nobody wants to live next to a brothel and this would be made worse by the proposal.


Page 102

Comment: Refer to section 5.1.3 and 5.2.1 of this report for discussion in relation to the impact of the proposal on privacy (including acoustic impact) and amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed use should be located away from the prime retail zone facing onto Military

Road; The location of this brothel is inappropriate and is located in close proximity to a bus stop

that is used by school children and a child care centre, approval of the brothel should be reversed/withdrawn;

This sort of business should operate in Kings Cross and not Mosman, a family orientated, genteel area;

This is a totally unacceptable business practice in a residential community and Council should look at the long term strategy for development in Mosman;

Impact on property values in the area; Impact on ability to attract tenants; Impact on existing tenants ability to trade; Comment: The brothel is situated on the first floor with no outward indication of its existence. The brothel has been in operation for a number of years and there is no indication that it has adversely affected the Spit Junction town centre or the broader Mosman local government area. No evidence has been supplied to suggest that the use as a brothel has negative impacts on property values and the profitability of local businesses. Opening until 3am will be a safety issue as there are less people around at this time; Concern regarding safety impacts for this residential area; Criminal activity in the area may increase and result in detrimental effects to the area. Comment: The Land and Environment Court has dealt extensively with the above issues. In the matter of Zang v Ashfield Municipal Council (2001) Commissioner Bly found that the behaviour of patrons of brothels should be accepted as that of ordinary members of the community. The planning principle established by Senior Commissioner Roseth in the matter of Martyn v Hornsby Shire Council (2004) established that there is no evidence that brothels in general are associated with crime or drug use and that where crime or drug use is in contention in relation to a particular brothel application, this should be supported by evidence. It is noted that the Commander of the Harbourside Command (NSW Police) has identified that from an occupational health and safety perspective, the security of the premises was believed to be inadequate given the history of the sex industry to attract serious crime, particularly assaults and robbery to its doorstep. Occupational health and safety may be breached for workers involved in these extensive

trading hours; Comment: Occupational health and safety of the workers is a matter for the operator of the business and is a not relevant matter for consideration under Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal increases the offence rate payers in the area currently suffer from the

presence of the brothel; Comment: Whilst brothels may be offensive to some people in the community the New South Wales Government through its amendments to the Disorderly Houses Act in 1995 has made this form of development legal. Questions associated with community attitudes to the legalisation of prostitution having regard to social, moral, cultural and religious grounds were matters for consideration by the state government in deciding to legalise this form of development.


Page 103

The area now has two brothels operating within a short distance and is well catered for, there should be no need to increase the proposed hours;

The owners of the brothel at 521 Military Road have raised concern that the proposed extended trading hours will give the brothel at 674 Military Road an unfair advantage by giving clients wider visiting hours, this could result in 521 losing clients because of their less flexible hours. They have also advised that if the application is approved, they will be forced to extend their hours as well;

Clients other than members of the local community will travel to this area to use the facility or use it as a stop off as they pass through;

Comment: These resident submissions have been noted and taken into consideration as part of this assessment. Concern regarding impacts on parking in the immediate area; Comment: Refer to section 5.2.2 of this report for discussion in relation to parking requirements. Are their laws limiting the trading hours of brothels? Comment: There are no specific laws limiting the trading hours of brothels. The merits of the hours of operation are required to be considered under the provisions of Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Trading hours of brothels are normally controlled by conditions of consent. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan and other relevant policies. This assessment has found that the proposal will have unreasonable impacts on adjoining properties in terms of amenity as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Boston Blyth Fleming. The owners are Andan Investments Pty Limited & Dolavat Agencies Pty Limited. The estimated value of works is nil. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Modification of Consent Application No. 8.1999.74.3 be refused on the following grounds: 1. The proposed modifications do not satisfy Clause 20(1)(b) of Mosman Local Environmental

Plan 1998 in that they will result in disturbance within the neighbourhood as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses.


Page 104

2. The proposed modifications do not satisfy Clause 20(1)(e) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that they will interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood as the hours proposed are not consistent with other uses in the vicinity of the site and given the proximity of the premises to residential uses.

3. The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and planning guideline E4

at Section 6.7 of Mosman Business Centres Development Control Plan as the proposed development will impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

4. The applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the operation of the brothel will be

conducted in the absence of a reception area. It is noted condition of consent No. 3 requires that no activities associated with the use shall be undertaken on the rear terrace or the front terrace.



Page 105

EP/38 16 Boyle Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.353.1

PROPOSAL: Alterations to an existing dwelling house including changes to fenestration and to internal walls on upper levels and relocation of a beam to the second level southern deck

REPORTING OFFICER: Ana Vissarion, Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 16 November 2009 (Downtime 0 days)


LOCALITY MAP

18

DP

441

057 SP 30093

DP 318

DP 100031

17

1

16

11

2

DP

597

445

DP

920

476

DP 752067

23B

1315

22

14

DP 2638

E

A26

SP 6

DP

338

019

1615

621051

DP

263

8

D

2

1A17 B1918

D

P

3434

81

DP

901

478

DP 2638

8 129 11

SP

412

54

SP

136

65 E

7077

DP 93710

SP

199

9

3635

A

D P444767

DP

236

5A

A

54

6

DP

236

5

E

1

A

2

41 1

2 DP

616

776

B37

DP 924394

3995

DP

917

789

1

B

16

5

DP 2638

1A

7 - 9

1B

1

5

3108

1424 22 20 18 16 12 10

86

42

15 13

46

11

2

11

5

106

1

8

3

17

42

21A

21

19

2830

32

26

27 25 23

79

BOYLEBOYLEST

OR

LAN

DO

RO

YA

LIS

T


Page 106

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The development application is for alterations to an existing dwelling house comprising new openings in internal walls of the dwelling and changes to the openings within the rear southern façade. No objections have been received. The development application is reported to Council as the site adjoins Harnett Park and the alterations will be seen from Mosman Bay. The proposal is assessed to be reasonable and is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the southern side of Boyle Street. The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 15.24m to Boyle Street. The site falls steeply to the south towards Mosman Bay and it is separated from the water by 511.6 m2 of Harnett Park Bushland. The site presently contains a three storey detached dwelling house with a swimming pool to the rear. Surrounding development consists of two and three storey residential dwellings. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip - potential Yes* Bushfire hazard Yes* Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities Yes** Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands Yes*

* Addressed in the body of this report. ** In accordance with MRDCP the undergrounding of utilities is only required for new residential development. Not

applicable. 2.0 BACKGROUND The development history of the site has been researched, there is no background information of particular relevance to this application. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Enlarging existing openings on the southern façade at both levels 2 and 3; Removing/opening internal walls at levels 2 and 3; and Relocating a structural beam to the deck at level 2 to improve outlook. The applicant has advised that they no longer wish to change the existing external stair from the rear ground floor level deck to the pool area.


Page 107

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.1.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and within the wetlands area. The site is not an identified strategic foreshore site and it is not identified as containing a heritage item. Division 2 of Part 3 of the deemed SEPP identifies matters for consideration. The proposal is within the W5 – Water Recreation zone as contained within the deemed SEPP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. The W5 zone is a public recreation zone which gives priority to public use and access to the water. The proposal does not affect public access to and use of the waterway. The proposal does not affect the biodiversity or ecology of the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Harnett Park separates the site from the waterway. The works will not affect the working harbour, the relationship between the foreshore and waterway, nor will it affect the scenic quality of Sydney Harbour. The application is consistent with the matters for consideration set out in Division 2 Part 3 of the deemed SEPP. 5.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The council must consider the past uses of the land and the proposed use of the land before consenting to a development application. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55.


Page 108

5.1.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.1.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(b) Residential under MLEP 1998. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height, Floorspace Ratio The proposed works will not change the existing height of the dwelling house and there will be no change to the existing floorspace as a result of the proposal. Landscaped Area The existing landscaped area within the site does not change. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. Clause 27 of MLEP 1998 requires consideration to be given to the objectives of the deemed SEPP - Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 and the impact of the proposed development on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman. The proposed works to the southern façade will not be readily discernible from the foreshore as being different from existing. The matters for consideration in Clause (2) have been addressed in the consideration of Section 5.1.1 of this report. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purposes of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Excavation and Potential Landslip The proposal does not involve excavation. The potential risk of landslip is assessed as negligible in the circumstances.


Page 109

Acid Sulfate Soils The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area or buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection Map. Wetlands The subject site is identified as wetlands. There is no site disturbing activities proposed with this application. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area, however, the site is within the vicinity of Boyle/Lower Boyle Street, Divided Road, identified in MLEP 1998 as an item of local heritage significance. The proposal has no impact on Boyle/Lower Boyle Street, Divided Road. 5.1.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.2 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.2.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale Section 4.2 of MRDCP requires development to have a scale which is not excessive, to have adequate side setbacks for spatial relief between buildings and to be of a height and scale which is consistent with the surrounding development. The proposal does not alter the siting and building scale. Views No views or vistas are affected by the proposal. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed alterations affect the internal fabric of the dwelling and the rear façade and will not be seen from the streetscape of Boyle/Lower Boyle Street. Privacy The proposed works to fenestration and deck structure are not assessed to result in any significant loss of privacy for surrounding properties. The proposal is assessed as satisfactory with regard for objectives and guidelines at Section 5.6 of MRDCP.


Page 110

Overshadowing The proposed works will not diminish solar access to windows or private open space areas of adjoining properties. The proposal is satisfactory with regard for the objectives at Section 5.8 of MRDCP. Waste Management The applicant has submitted a waste management plan with the development application. The proposed development is satisfactory in meeting the outcomes and planning guidelines relating to waste management. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. The proposed works are in keeping with the local context and are in compliance with the desired future character objectives of the area. Bushfire Prone Land The site is classified as Bush Fire Prone Land. Conditions of consent will require that works are completed according to the specification in Australian Standard 3959-1999 Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire Prone Areas. 5.2.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.2.3 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is within the foreshores and waterways boundary as shown on Foreshores and Waterways Area Map and as such the Foreshore DCP applies to the subject site. Section 3 of the Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP refers to landscape character types. The Landscape Character type for the subject site is Type 9. Development that is consistent with the scale, design and siting of that which exists is encouraged. The proposal satisfies the criteria for works in landscape area Type 9. The Terrestrial Ecological Community identified for the area is Urban Development with Scattered Trees. The proposed works satisfy the objectives of sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.10 of the DCP and are assessed as satisfactory in this regard. The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP. 5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.


Page 111

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 1 December and 16 December 2009. No submissions were received. 7.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. This assessment has found that the proposed works have been responsibly designed in relation to the opportunities and constraints of the site, are reasonable in terms of their potential impacts on Mosman Bay and provide for acceptable levels of amenity for present and future residents. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Rachel James. The owners are Mr G G & Mrs R A James. The estimated value of works is $120,000. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2009.353.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION

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

Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Drawings 3084.00A; 3084.01A; 3084.02A

October, 2009 Plan Concepts Pty Ltd


Not dated Applicant

BASIX Certificate No. A72347

27 November, 2009

NSW Government – Department of Planning



Conditions may require the submission of additional information with the Construction Certificate application. Applicants should also familiarise themselves with conditions in


Page 112

subsequent sections and provide plans in accordance with any design requirements contained therein.



2. The external stair indicated for removal on drawing 3084-00A, dated October 2009, is not approved for removal. Details shall be included in the Construction Certificate application.

3. For safety reasons, access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Act, 1992. Details shall be included in the Construction Certificate application.








Retaining Walls


Sydney Water

8. The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water assets, sewer


Page 113

and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if further requirements need to be met. The approved plans will be appropriately stamped. Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au or telephone 13 20 92 for:




Bushfire

9. To minimise likely risk from bushfire, the building must be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 3959 – 1999 Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas. Details of necessary construction requirements to comply with the standard must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application to the satisfaction of Council or the Accredited Certifier.

BASIX Certificate


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit







Page 114














Home Building Act




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


Page 115

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


















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


Page 116

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





Partial Demolition

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









Site Work Hours






Page 117



Council Property







Tree Preservation




BASIX Certificate

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

Toilet Facilities




Page 118






Approved Plans















Page 119




who carried it out.

BASIX Certificate





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

PRIOR TO OCCUPATION









Page 120

ADVICE / NOTES


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















Page 121




Page 122

EP/39 5 Raglan Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.412.1

PROPOSAL: Proposed replacement of steel spiral stair between ground floor terrace and pool level terrace with conventional stair

REPORTING OFFICER: Claire Muir, Senior Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 29 December 2010 (Downtime 0 days)

OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions

LOCALITY MAP

DP 104765

D P540158

1

1

11

3

2

DP 827938

DP

917

263

DP

917

281

SP 45081

DP

831

785

1

SP

204

7

12

DP 922602

SP 4339

1

SP 69443

SP 19681SP

117

47

1A

1

11

1

DP 174505

DP 920666

931570

DP 934840

SP 77449

2

A

DP

304

385D P

534080

SP 1450

SP 45033

DP

555

101

1

1 21

1

DP 947463

DP

951

864

1

DP 115870

SP

177

3

SP

121

30

1

DP 926798

SP

139

69D

P 7

2523

9

DP

7520671100

SP 75301

1

1

DP

544

789

DP

921

091

DP

921

470

1

21

1

DP

927

379

SP 13791

6159

DP

920

931

DP 920932

SP

385

90 17

1416

16

14A

12B

1012

A

8

911

15

57

11

5

2

4

1

3

3

6

22A

6B

79A

9B

6A 6

2A

15

4

1111

A

86

6

17

17

4A

HERRON WALK

RA

GLA

N

MU

SG

RA

VE


Page 123

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed development is for the replacement of a steel spiral stair between the ground floor terrace and pool level terrace with a conventionally formed staircase. No (0) submissions were received. The assessment finds the proposed staircase to be reasonable subject to a requirement regarding the finish of the proposed balustrade being in a dark recessive colour. Subject to the conditions outlined in the recommendation the application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The subject site is located on the eastern side of Raglan Street, near Curraghbeena Point. The site is trapezoidal in shape with a frontage of 15.24 metres to Raglan Street. The site has a fall of over 30 metres from the Raglan Street frontage of the property to the harbour. The rear of the site which fronts Sydney Harbour and Little Sirius Cove has been extensively altered and is visually prominent from the waterway. On the site is a 3 storey dwelling house. Vehicular access is gained from Raglan Street. Immediately surrounding development consists of ‘The Castle’ at No. 3 Raglan Street and a pair of semi-detached dwellings at Nos 7 and 9 Raglan Street. A multiple dwelling development is located at No. 15 Raglan Street. Dwelling houses and multiple dwellings make up the remainder of development in the vicinity. The property is a heritage item listed as a group with Nos 7, 9 and 11 Raglan Street. The following known hazards and/or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard Yes Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls Yes* Wetlands No

* Council’s retaining walls are located on Raglan Street. The proposal does not affect the walls. 2.0 BACKGROUND On 11 October 2005, Council approved DA 8.2004.400.1 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including basement, ground floor and first floor additions on the property. On 8 May 2007, consent was granted (8.2004.400.2) for further internal and external modifications to the dwelling.


Page 124

On 23 July 2007, a third modification application was approved (8.2004.400.3) for modification of Condition 5 relating to bushfire. On 23 November 2007, Council approved DA 8.2004.400.4 for minor external alterations and further amendment to Condition 5 relating to bushfire. Pursuant to Council’s resolution of 20 November 2007 a meeting was convened on 3 December 2007 between the Mayor, General Manger, Manager Development Services and Mr Antony Tisch (owner, landscaper and builder) to discuss issues around the landscaping of the development underway at 5 Raglan Street. The following comment was made;

Mr Tisch confirmed that the landscaping on the site was installed approximately 18 months ago, that in the area between the foreshore and the pool terrace the landscaping is largely complete and that it comprises creepers trained against the retaining walls, shrub plantings, some 130 Lilly Pilly trees and two Moreton Bay figs (approx. 200 litre pot size) planted on the lower reaches of the site. In respect to the stainless steel balustrade, Mr Tisch advised that it would with time begin to “tea- leaf” (a corrosion process) and dull down. Mr Tisch also offered to plant and train Wisteria over the balustrades to reduce their presence from the waterway. Mr Tisch anticipates that the retaining walls will largely be overgrown by the creepers within this growing season.

On 24 June 2008, Council approved 8.2004.400.5 for the deletion of condition 16 requiring a bond for the protection of a street tree which was to be transplanted; an advanced tree replacement was instead required. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: Demolition of the existing steel spiral stair from the lower ground floor level of the house down

to the swimming pool terrace level; and Construction of a conventional stair from the lower ground floor level to the swimming pool

terrace level, going down the face of the existing retaining wall from north to south and turning at the bottom to arrive on the existing paved terrace.

No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Transport Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan


Page 125

Significant Rock Faces and Retaining Walls Policy 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning 2(b)

Landscaped Area 503.4 m2 404.92 m2 (-19.6%) No Change

Foreshore Building Line (FBL) Applies Works forward of FBL No (SEPP 1)


Setbacks

Ground floor deck - north

First floor deck - north

1.5m

3m

1.3m (existing approved)

1.3m(existing approved)

Yes

Yes



>2 hours (existing approved)

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (Development Standards) An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) has been made requesting variation to the following development standard prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 28 (2) Foreshore Building Line Clause 28 (2) of MLEP 1998 prescribes that Council must not consent to the erection of a building or the carrying out of a work on land between the foreshore building line (FBL) and adjacent tidal waters, unless it fits within certain criteria prescribed by sub-clause (3). Clause 28(3) states that Council may consent to: a) to the erection of single storey boatshed, wharves or jetties, or b) the erection of a structure or the carrying out of a work, at or below the surface of the

ground. between a foreshore building line and adjacent tidal waters but only if it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed structure, or the result of the carrying out of the work, in relation to the foreshore. The proposal does not comply as the proposed staircase lies between mean high water mark and the FBL and is above the natural ground level. The objectives for the FBL are listed under Clause 28(1). The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of its objectives:


Page 126

a) to protect the natural landform and landscape of the foreshore, and

The proposal will not affect the natural landform and landscape of the foreshore. The area forward of the FBL is already extensively altered and the proposal will provide improved access for the current owners.

b) to contribute to a bushland and wildlife corridor around the foreshore of Mosman, and

The area in which the staircase is proposed is not known to be a wildlife corridor of any significance nor is any bushland removed as a result of the proposed staircase.

c) to control pollution by limiting stormwater run-off directly into waterways by retaining and

protecting vegetation along the foreshore;

There is no change to the amount of impervious surfaces forward of the foreshore building line area.

d) to protect the visual amenity of the foreshore, and

The subject site is a particularly prominent site as viewed from Sydney Harbour, however the proposed new staircase subject to a condition regarding the finish of the balustrade requiring it to be a dark, recessive colour will result in a satisfactory outcome.

e) to protect dwellings from potential rising sea levels resulting from the global warming.

The proposed staircase is well above the mean high watermark and is not considered to require protection from rising sea levels.

f) To minimise the visual scale and bulk of development when viewed from the water, and

The proposed staircase subject to a condition of consent regarding the finish of the balustrade will ensure a satisfactory visual scale. The soft landscaping used elsewhere on the subject site will remain as approved under previous consents.

g) To protect the public views and the visual amenity of the foreshore when viewed from the water by ensuring that native vegetation growth (trees, shrubs and groundcover species) along the foreshore is protected and enhanced, and

The proposal will not result in the loss of existing vegetation which is of significance.

h) To ensure that foreshore areas that are developed provide adequate areas for protecting

and enhancing local native vegetation growth (trees, shrubs and groundcover species). This native vegetation growth should protect adjacent waterways from runoff and contribute to a habitat corridor (including by providing shelter and organic matter) for both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

It is unlikely that the proposal will disturb the existing vegetation to the extent that it will adversely impact on runoff from the site or any existing habitat.

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


Page 127

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

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Pursuant to Clause 3 and 5 of the SEPP the instrument applies to the subject site. As the works are land based, Mosman Council is the relevant consent authority. The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and as such the matters for consideration under Part 3 of the SEPP apply: Biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection

The matters for consideration (a) – (i) outlined at Clause 21 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a reasonable impact in this regard.

Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 22 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not impact on public access to and along the foreshore.

Maintenance of a working harbour The matters for consideration (a) – (d) outlined at Clause 23 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have no impact on the maintenance of a working harbour.

Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 24 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the works the subject of this application will not alter the existing interrelationship of the waterway and foreshore uses.

Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 25 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the scale, form, design and siting of the proposal as it relates to the scenic qualities of the foreshore and waterway is reasonable.

Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 26 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a satisfactory impact, subject to conditions of consent regarding the balustrade in terms of views obtained to and from the harbour.


Page 128

Boat storage facilities The matters for consideration (a) – (f) outlined at Clause 27 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not result in an increase or reduction in the number of boat storage facilities.

This application was referred to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee where it was considered at its meeting of 5 February 2010 and the following relevant comments were made (full comments are noted below):

“The Committee notes that the subject site is visually prominent. The Committee does not raise any objection to this proposal but recommended that the consent authority conditions any approval to require the use of non-reflective and recessive material and finishes in accordance with the requirements of clause 5.4 of the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 2005”

The site is not identified as land comprising acid sulphate soils or wetlands protection under the provisions of the SEPP. The site is not an identified strategic site and is also not identified on the relevant Sydney Harbour Catchment maps as containing a heritage item or being in the vicinity of any heritage items. Accordingly, Part 4 and Part 5 of the SEPP do not apply. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.4 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was not accompanied by a BASIX certificate due to the works being for a staircase and therefore exempt. 5.2.5 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned Residential 2(b). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. Height The proposed works do not affect compliance with the maximum building height established by Clause 13 of the MLEP 1998


Page 129

Floorspace Ratio The proposed works do not impact on compliance with the maximum floor space ratio established by Clause 14 of the MLEP 1998 Landscaped Area The proposed works do not impact on compliance with the minimum landscaped area requirements established by Clause 15 of the MLEP 1998. The area under the cantilevered structure where it could be defined as an undercroft area and therefore excluded from landscaped area is approximately equal to that currently occupied by the spiral stair case. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory. The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of the surrounding development and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the foreshore. The proposal meets the clause objectives. Foreshore Building Line The proposed variation to the foreshore building line has previously been addressed in section 5.2 of this report. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse, noting the Harbour is not defined as a natural watercourse as it is not a freshwater environment. Excavation Excavation associated with this proposal is minor, being for the footings and therefore can be address by site management conditions of consent. Acid Sulfate Soils The subject site is identified as being in a buffer area with regard to Acid Sulfate Soils, however the works proposed are not in the area identified the related clause in the MLEP is not applicable. Wetlands The site is not located within the vicinity of identified wetlands. Heritage The site is not within a heritage conservation area but the subject site, together with the adjoining properties, is part of a group of 4 residential buildings (5, 7, 9 and 11 Raglan Street) identified in MLEP 1998 as items of local heritage significance. No. 3 Raglan Street is also identified as an item of local heritage significance as well as Raglan Street.


Page 130

Clause 37 of MLEP 1998 requires that when determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, Council must consider: (a) the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance, curtilage and

setting of the item, and (b) the impact of the proposed development on any significant view to or from the heritage item. The application was referred to Council Heritage advisor who raised no objection. The proposed staircase does not adversely affect the site's heritage significance and is satisfactory pursuant to the heritage provisions of the MLEP 1988. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.6 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned as R3 medium density residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is a heritage item pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. The heritage listing of the site remains unchanged from MLEP 1998. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The siting and scale of the proposed development is satisfactory. There are no adverse impacts on siting or building scale from the proposed side setbacks, nor are there adverse overshadowing, privacy or view loss issues. Views Due to the location of the staircase and the local topography the proposal does not impact on private or public views. The proposed works satisfy section 4.3 of MRDCP. Landscaping As outlined in section 5.2 there is no change proposed to the approved landscaped area and landscape plan. The proposed works satisfy section 4.4 of MRDCP.


Page 131

Streetscape and Building Design The proposal will have no impact on the Streetscape as it is to the rear of the dwelling. Planning Guideline P11 of section 5.2 of the Residential DCP requires the colour and surface of external finishes to be sympathetic to neighbourhood character and contribute to the overall impact of the development. The existing balustrades are constructed from stainless steel, which due to its reflectivity is very prominent when viewed from the water. The presence of the balustrades in the public domain is considerable having regard for the visual prominence of the subject site in Sydney Harbour and Little Sirius Cove. The current application affords an opportunity through the selection of materials and colours for the stair to improve the visual amenity of the site from the waterway. The sites visual amenity is improving as the landscape matures and softens the sandstone coloured rendered retaining wall. Closer to the water, vines have been trained over the existing balustrades which helps soften their appearance. However the proposed replacement stair location is not suitable for such treatment. Accordingly a condition of consent is recommended requiring the use of a dark coloured recessive balustrade to be used in this location. Car Parking & Access The proposed works do not affect car parking. Privacy The proposal will not result in unacceptable privacy loss to the adjoining properties. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. The proposal will cast additional shadows over the adjoining properties, however the design ensures that these are minimal and remain compliant with the established controls. Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency The application was not accompanied by a BASIX certificate due to the works being exempt from this requirement. Stormwater Management Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.13 of MRDCP.


Page 132

Site Management and Excavation Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP. Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. Swimming Pools Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the pool remains adequately fenced. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal does not alter the existing provision of 2 car spaces. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.3.4 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The site is within the foreshores and waterways boundary and as such the Foreshore DCP applies on the subject site. The subject site is identified as having an ‘urban development with scattered trees’ terrestrial ecological community and as being adjacent to a rocky platform aquatic ecological community on the Ecological Communities and Landscape Character map. Section 3 of the Foreshores DCP refers to the landscape character types. The landscape character types for the subject site are types 8. The proposal is satisfactory with regards to the relevant performance criteria in that no significant landscape items are proposed to be removed as a result of this subject application, which would result in a subject site further dominating the view of little Sirius Cove as viewed from the water. Section 5 of the Foreshores DCP refers to land based development, as the staircase proposed is wholly land based this section relates to specific types of development. Section 5.4 Built Form applies general criteria in particular the following;

Use of reflective materials is minimised and the relevant provision of the Building Code of Australia are satisfied.

Colours should be sympathetic with their surrounds. Section 5.14 Inclinators, Stairs And Driveways applies the following criteria to the proposal;

Stairs should be a maximum of 1.2m wide.


Page 133

Stairs should be constructed in timber, masonry or stone. Galvanised stairs will only be permitted where they are painted in colours that blend with their setting.

Inclinators, stairs and driveways should be sited to maintain privacy of adjacent dwellings. Inclinators, stairs and driveway should be obscure or break a view line of a rock or cliff face. The implementation of soil erosion measures. and Encourage the shared use of access facilities in environmentally sensitive locations.

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the above criteria subject to the inclusion of conditions regarding the finish and colour of the balustrade and site management conditions. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Heritage Advisor made the following comments:

The proposed stair will have minimal impact on any identified heritage values associated with this site and is acceptable in this context. The colour of the structure should be neutral and recessive to avoid visual prominence when viewed from the water”.

The Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee made the following comments:

1. This matter was considered by the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee on Friday 5 February 2010.

2. The representative from Mosman Council was unable to attend the meeting but

provided the attached comments. 3. The Committee noted that the subject site is visually prominent. 4. The Committee does not raised any objection to this proposal but recommends that

the consent authority conditions any approval to require the use of non-reflective and recessive material and finishes of clause 5.4 of the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 2005.

7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 8 and 27 January 2010. No (0) submissions were received. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. The assessment has found that the proposed staircase subject to conditions regarding the balustrade will have an acceptable impact on the visual amenity of the subject site.


Page 134

9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is David Liddy and Associates. The owner is A E Tasker. The estimated value of works is $67,500. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objection made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standard relating to the foreshore building line within Clause 28(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 is well founded, and in this case varying the standard to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons:

(a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standard;

(b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the site, and

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

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





Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Survey Ref No 714ID 24 May 2008 Warren F Cole 11, 12, 13 October 2009 David Liddy and Associates


November 2009 David Liddy and Associates

Statement of Heritage Impact November 2009 David Liddy and Associates Waste Management Plan 18 December 2009 David Liddy and Associates


Page 135










3. The materials of construction and finish of the staircase shall be non-reflective and dark in colour to minimise its visual prominence. Details of finished external surface materials, including colours and texture, must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council or the Accredited Certifier.



Sydney Water




Page 136



Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

7. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $500 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.










(i) the Construction Certificate has been issued;



Page 137

(ii) the person benefiting from the consent has appointed a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) by way of completing Form 7A (attached at the end of the consent);

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





Home Building Act











(c) the hoarding fence must be securely fixed to withstand strong winds


Page 138

(d) the fence must have only one point of entry which must correspond with the vehicle crossing and have inward opening gates or gates which are removable and fitted with a locking device















Partial Demolition



Page 139









Site Work Hours











Page 140



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

Dust Control


Council Property







Tree Preservation



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



Page 141

any inconsistency between this condition and the development application documents, this condition will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.


30. For safety reasons, access to the swimming pool must be restricted by fencing or other measures as prescribed by the Swimming Pools Act, 1992.

Lighting

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

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans








Page 142











who carried it out.


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

ADVICE / NOTES






Page 143















Page 144

EP/40 18/24A Musgrave Street

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.386.1

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing multiple dwelling comprising of additional bedroom, replacement of windows and new pergola to the two (2) existing balconies.

REPORTING OFFICER: Claire Muir, Senior Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 9 December 2009


LOCALITY MAP

2 3

22

SP 3780

12

DP

300

811

51

SP 3059

C1

A

3A

DP 331133

DP 961304

DP 963185

SP 100

DP 313281

SP 68464

1

DP 449492

1

11

3A

12

DP

323801

SP 39815

DP

589568

X

12

Y

1

3 DP 32915

DP

110

1886

DP 399878

DP 580882

DP 771562

SP 5796

DP 919407

11

1

DP 919852

DP 922512

261

DP

1086184

14

DP 933014SP 44856

DP 919545

DP1124017

SP 14848

SP 55753

SP

241

SP

6

SP 30460

1

SP 43233

SP 16557

SP 2724

SP 15768

SP 6375

SP 30459

SP 15767

BA

DP

31

3281

SP 35032

SP 111

SP 12152

C

A

B

1

DP 25927

DP

3238013B

DP 449492

SP 53151

SP 57320

21

1

DP

354849

DP 920301

SP 72396

DP

907

314

A

SP

70

624

DP 366159

DP

327

998

1

A

B B

2628

3032

1921

424

40

3436

2323

A25

2022

24

40A

43

41

34

38

40

36

35

3739

202

2

24A

31

33

24

24A

27

12

18A

16A

18

14

16

23

25

29

21

6

13

4

11

15 1H

8C

20A

26

30

22A

22B

19

1010A 8A 8

6A

2117

CHARLES DANSIE WALK

STS

T

MCLEOD

RA

GLA

N

MU

SG

RA

VE

STREET


Page 145

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing multiple dwelling comprising of an additional bedroom, replacement of several windows and doors and new pergola to each of the two (2) existing balconies. The proposed development does not comply with the maximum building height, wall height, number of storeys and floor space development standards. One (1) submission was received on behalf of the body corporate, this has since been resolved through the submission of an amended plan. The assessment finds the variations to the development standards to be reasonable with a satisfactory design outcome. The additional bulk from the new floor space is satisfactory. There is no adverse impact on the streetscape of Musgrave Street. The application is recommended for approval.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Musgrave Street, between McCloud Street and Herron Walk. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 21.025m to Musgrave Street and a depth of 39.435m. The site presently contains a renovated five (5) storey multiple dwelling development containing 19 units with several parking spaces located under a portion of the building, off the street frontage. Surrounding development consists of a range of residential development, from detached multi-level residential dwellings, to large scale residential flat buildings. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities Yes * Rock faces & retaining walls Yes ** Wetlands No

* Musgrave Street is affected by the undergrounding of utilities. This restriction does not apply in this application. ** The eastern side of Musgrave Street is affected by Council’s retaining walls, which will not be affected by the proposal.


Page 146

2.0 BACKGROUND On 8 July 2009 Council approved Development Application No.8.2009.11.1 for the strata subdivision of the existing residential flat building into 19 strata lots. No physical works were part of this application. There are no outstanding Fire Notices affecting the property on file. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The proposal consists of: New pergola to the east and south balconies; New bedroom to the northern side of the existing balcony including partial enclosure of the

existing balcony; and New interior fit-out to the unit including new kitchen, bathrooms and new walk-in wardrobe. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy - Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE


Site Area N/A 849.4m2 N/A

Building Height 8.5m 22.14m (263%) No (SEPP 1)

Wall Height 7.2m 22.14m(307%) No (SEPP 1)

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 6 storeys (300%) No (SEPP 1)

Gross Floor Area

Existing 1440.9m2 N/A

Proposed 12m2 N/A

Total 467.2m2 1452.9m2 N/A

Floorspace Ratio 0.55 : 1 1.71 : 1 (308%) No


Page 147

LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Landscaped Area

Proposed 424.3m2 280m2 No (existing)



Setbacks

Fifth floor - north

Fifth floor – South

3m

11m

2m

3.6m

No

No



> 2 hours Yes

BASIX Certificate Certificate Certificate Issue Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP No.1) have been made requesting variation to the following development standards prescribed under Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP1998): Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height Clause 13(3) Maximum of Two Storeys Clause 14(2) Maximum Floorspace Ratio Clause 13(2) Maximum Building Height The proposal has a maximum building height of 22.14m which exceeds the development standard of 8.5m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 13.64m or 263%. Clause 13(2) Maximum Wall Height The proposal has a maximum wall height of 22.14m which exceeds the development standard of 7.2m in Clause 13(2) of MLEP 1998 by 14.94m or 307% Clause13(3) Maximum of Two Storeys The proposal has a maximum of six (6) storeys which exceeds the development standard of two (2) storeys in Clause 13(3) of MLEP 1998 by four (4) storey or 300%. The objectives for the height limits in residential zones are listed under Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with each of the standards has been assessed against each of the objectives below: (a) to protect public and private views,

Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Building Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The proposal does not increase the existing overall height of the building. The proposed

addition is to the front of the building which is due to the topography and relationship with the adjoining residential development does not impact on private or public views.


Page 148

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

Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Building Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The additional floor space is located on the street front elevation. The subject site is

separated from Middle Harbour through vegetation and development between the site and the water. Consequently the proposed works are not highly visible from the water and the proposal will not dominate the view from the Foreshore or Harbour.

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

in terms of height and pitched roof form;

Maximum Wall Height/Maximum Building Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The proposed works are not higher than the existing building. The proposed works do not change the existing main roof of the residential flat building

and are consistent with the overall roof and building design. (d) to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in

existing residential areas. Maximum Wall Height/ Maximum Building Height/Maximum of Two Storeys The proposal does not adversely affect adjoining development with regard to privacy,

overshadowing or view loss. The new works are largely contained within the framework of the existing building and consequently its bulk and scale is not substantially altered.

Maximum Floorspace Ratio The proposal has a gross floor area of 1452.9m2 and a floorspace ratio of 1.71:1 which exceeds the development standard of 0.5:1 in Clause 14(2) of MLEP 1998 by 985.73m2 or 308%. The objectives for floorspace ratios in residential zones are listed under Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. The reasonableness or necessity for compliance with the standard has been assessed against each of the objectives below:

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

Musgrave Street has a variety of building types and style. This upper section of

Musgrave Street is largely characterised by large older period residential flat buildings. The scale of the proposal is compatible with the housing characteristics of the locality.

b) to limit excavation of sites and retain natural ground levels for the purposes of landscaping and containing urban run-off.

The proposal involves no excavation and does not alter the landscape setting.

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

The additional floor space and resulting bulk is sufficiently mitigated by the proposed pergola structure.

The proposal does not adversely affect adjoining development with regard to privacy, overshadowing or view loss.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 provides flexibility in the application of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objectives of the Act.


Page 149

In the circumstances of the case, the variation to each of the development standards satisfies the objectives of the standards and is consistent with the objectives of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Flexibility in the application of the standards is consistent with “the proper management and development” of the land and the “promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.” The SEPP No.1 objections are well founded and are consistent with the aims of the Policy as set out in Clause 3. Consent may be granted pursuant to Clause 7 of the Policy. 5.2.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 The SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is identified within the Foreshores and Waterways Area. Pursuant to Clause 3 and 5 of the SEPP the instrument applies to the subject site. As the works are land based, Mosman Council is the relevant consent authority. The subject site is within the Foreshores and Waterways Area and as such the matters for consideration under Part 3 of the SEPP apply: Biodiversity, ecology and environmental protection

The matters for consideration (a) – (i) outlined at Clause 21 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have a reasonable impact in this regard.

Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 22 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not impact on public access to and along the foreshore.

Maintenance of a working harbour The matters for consideration (a) – (d) outlined at Clause 23 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have no impact on the maintenance of a working harbour.

Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

The matters for consideration (a) – (e) outlined at Clause 24 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the works the subject of this application will not alter the existing interrelationship of the waterway and foreshore uses.

Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 25 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the scale, form, design and siting of the proposal as it relates to the scenic qualities of the foreshore and waterway is reasonable.

Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

The matters for consideration (a) – (c) outlined at Clause 26 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will have no unreasonable impact in terms of views obtained to and from the harbour.


Page 150

Boat storage facilities The matters for consideration (a) – (f) outlined at Clause 27 have been taken into consideration in the assessment, the proposal will not result in an increase or reduction in the number of boat storage facilities.

This application was not required to be referred to the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee. The site is not identified as land comprising acid sulphate soils or wetlands protection under the provisions of the SEPP. The site is not an identified strategic site and is also not identified on the relevant Sydney Harbour Catchment maps as containing a heritage item or being in the vicinity of any heritage items. Accordingly, Part 4 and Part 5 of the SEPP do not apply. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000. 5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned residential 2(b). The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a multiple dwelling and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. The development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposed variations to the maximum building height, maximum wall height and number of storeys development standards have previously been addressed. Floorspace Ratio The proposed variation to the floorspace ratio development standard has previously been addressed in section 5.2 of this report.


Page 151

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposal’s impact on the natural environment and the environmental heritage of Mosman is assessed as satisfactory. The proposal is in keeping with the height and scale of surrounding development and will not be visually dominant when viewed from the foreshore. The proposal meets the clause objectives. Foreshore Building Line The site is not affected by the foreshore building line. Contaminated Sites As the site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site may be contaminated, for the purpose of this assessment the site is not contaminated and no remediation of land is necessary. Natural Watercourse The site is not located within the vicinity of a natural watercourse. Excavation No excavation is proposed under this application. Acid Sulfate Soils and Wetlands The site is not within the acid sulfate soil area of buffer area identified on the Foreshore Protection map. The site is not identified as wetlands or wetlands buffer. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area. Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 medium density under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The works are defined as multiple dwelling housing and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative.


Page 152

5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Subdivision Not applicable. Siting and Scale The proposal utilises the exiting setbacks of the building. Assessment of the scheme has found that the proposal is satisfactory and compatible with the prevailing development pattern and character. This section of Musgrave Street is characterised by large residential flat buildings. The proposed pergola and additional bedroom to the front of the scheme are satisfactory with regard to bulk and scale. Views Due to the location of the subject site and the local topography the proposal does not impact on private or public views. The proposed works satisfy section 4.3 of MRDCP. Landscaping The proposal does not alter the existing landscaped area of the subject site. No significant vegetation will be removed. Streetscape and Building Design The proposed works result in a satisfactory streetscape appearance. This section of Musgrave Street has a variety of building forms and scale. The proposal is reasonable and consistent with the existing building and streetscape. The floor plans note an external blind to the master bedroom. No detail has been provided. It is not considered appropriate to approve an external blind, when one could be provided internally, particularly in circumstances where the existing building is devoid of external blinds as it presents to the street and surrounding development. Accordingly it is recommended that it be deleted. Privacy The proposal will not result in unacceptable privacy loss to the adjoining properties as the proposed works do not result in any new view of adjoining properties to the occupants of unit 18. Crime Prevention The proposal satisfies the objectives and the relevant guidelines of the crime prevention requirement contained in MRDCP. Overshadowing The proposal achieves compliance with the overshadowing controls. The proposal will cast additional shadows over the adjoining properties, however the design ensures that these are minimal and remain compliant with the established controls.


Page 153

Site Facilities Adequate site facilities have been provided in accordance with MRDCP. Energy Efficiency State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 indicates that the provisions of the BASIX Certificate override DCP provisions which would otherwise add to or subtract from the BASIX requirements. Appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation to achieve the fulfilment of the BASIX requirements. Stormwater Management Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.13 of MRDCP. Site Management and Excavation Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposal is consistent with the relevant requirements contained in Section 5.14 of MRDCP. Waste Management The application was accompanied by a waste management plan. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 5.15 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Mosman Bay townscape. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Transport Development Control Plan (TDCP) The proposal does not alter the existing provision of car parking spaces. 5.3.3 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.3.4 Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan The assessment of the development application found that the proposed development satisfied the relevant provisions of the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area Development Control Plan. The works proposed as part of this application will not result in further unreasonable impacts having regarding to the relevant provision of this DCP. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval.

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


Page 154

6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES None required. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 17 December 2009 and 8 January 2010. One (1) submission was received from or on behalf of the following property: 24A Musgrave Street. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: One of the plans show glass balustrade on the southern elevation. This was not approved

by the board of directors; Comment: The drawing in question has been amended showing the proposed balustrade to match the existing. 8.0 CONCLUSION The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998, Mosman Residential Development Control Plan and other relevant Council policies. The assessment has found that the proposed alterations and additions will have an acceptable bulk and scale in the context of surrounding development. The impact of the proposed works on adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and views is assessed as reasonable subject to the conditions recommended. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Emily Phippard of Anneau. The owner is Ian Schilling. The estimated value of works is $54,000. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION A. That the objections made under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to the

development standards relating to maximum building height, maximum wall height, maximum of two (2) storeys and maximum floorspace ratio within Clauses 13(2), 13(3) and 14(2) of Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 are well founded, and in this case varying the standards to permit the proposed development is acceptable for the following main reasons:

(a) The proposal meets the objectives of the development standards;


Page 155

(b) The design of the proposal appropriately responds to the constraints of the site, and the context of surrounding development;

(c) The areas of non-compliance will not cause significant detrimental impacts on

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





Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Survey Ref No 73758 24 June 2009 Rygate & Company Pty Ltd A01 rev A 20 September

2009 Emily Phippard

A02 rev A 15 January 2010 Emily Phippard A03 20 July 2010 Emily Phippard A04 20 July 2010 Emily Phippard


July 2009 Emily Phippard

Basix Certificate NoA62800 27 August 2009 NSW Dept of Planning Waste Management Plan 8 December 2009 Emily Phippard SEPP1 Heights February 2010 Emily Phippard SEPP1 Floor space August 2009 Emily Phippard








Page 156

Amendment to Plans – external blind

3. The external blind to the master bedroom is not approved and shall be deleted to ensure a satisfactory streetscape presentation. Plans are to be amended prior to the issue of the construction certificate.








6. The applicant shall supply Council with a dilapidation report for the adjoining residential units to the rear and below and the common property at 24a Musgrave Street, Mosman which documents and photographs the condition of buildings and improvements on that property. The report will be held by Council and will be made available in any private dispute between the neighbours regarding damage arising from site and construction works.

Sydney Water






Page 157



BASIX Certificate


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit

11. A cash deposit or bank guarantee to the value of $1500 in favour of Council shall be provided for the making good of any damage caused to Council property and to ensure the satisfactory completion of any works required to be undertaken outside the property boundary. A request for a refund of unused funds (less an inspection fee) may be made following the completion of all works, both inside and outside the property boundary, and an inspection of the site by Council.

Fire Safety

12. To enable the issuing of a fire safety schedule, information required by clause 168(3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.








Page 158












Home Building Act








Page 159


have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects

















Page 160





Partial Demolition


Asbestos Material










Site Work Hours



Page 161











Dust Control


Council Property





Page 162




Tree Preservation




BASIX Certificate

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

Air Conditioning Units

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

Toilet Facilities








Page 163


Approved Plans
















was carried out; and


Page 164

Whether or not the inspection was satisfactory in the opinion of the certifying authority who carried it out.

BASIX Certificate




PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES







Page 165







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

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

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

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

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

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




Page 166

EP/41 134 Cowles Road

DA NUMBER: 8.2009.278.1

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including first floor addition with deck

REPORTING OFFICER: Duncan Livingstone, Town Planner

LODGEMENT DATE: 18 September 2009 (Downtime 62 days)


LOCALITY MAP

B 27 26

21

A27

252

A

1

1

13

41

1

D P1068056

DP 743257

DP 85622

DP 975228

5

P1

P9

2

33

1D

P 4

5604

936

DP

456

049

DP

11

23

DP 744599

13A

1

DP 197434

DP 735892

2

1 3

D

P34

5970

1A

30

B

2 D

P10

1003

DP 548941

DP 5745

35

DP 33478

D

P

4453

89

D

P44

3164

P

6898

ED

2

26

124

DP

574

5

DP 67847

DP 112192

D P858720

DP 77887

DP 784943

DP 85097

DP 88694

D P582424

DP 738109

D P826052

1

DP 975228DP 797814

DP 194149DP 770801

DP 797222

DP 83640

1 5

24

DP

102

333

2

101

100

B

11

251

210

2

D P864392

D P106361

DP 112773

B

1

4 A

2

DP

4257

D

P44

0830

3

1917

30

16

DP 76205

28

1

21

1

DP 4257

DP 510650

DP 628992

DP 795264

DP 85914DP 742573

DP 79789

DP 81793

11

1

1

11

12

21

291

30

D

P58

9590

DP

736

470

DP

767

02

P 1103233

192

DP

696

30

DP

714

303

DP

811

36

96

91

98102

104

99 97

100

95 93

106

101A 101

144

146

148

142

69

50

67

46

4244

44A

6365

5961

54

61

63A

60 58

63

56

63

64

67

62

65A

60A

65

136

126

128

130

132

134

138

140

7781 79

75

45

34

3941

4347

49

5355

57

51A

51B

3026

2834

A36

3840

30A

32A

32

85

4

83 81A

ST

RD

AWABAC

OW

LES

DALTON

LN

BO

ND VIN

CE

NZ

BOND

LN

LN

RO

AD


Page 167

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new first floor addition and rear balcony. The proposal complies with the height and floorspace ratio development standards. The proposal does not comply with the minimum landscaped area or solar access requirements. The proposal involves some view loss. The primary issues with the application include overshadowing and privacy. Objections in relation to the above issues have been received from neighbouring properties. The assessment has found that that the privacy impacts are reasonable and that the overshadowing is acceptable subject to the deletion of the extended chimney adjacent to the southern boundary. The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

REPORT 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCALITY AND THE SITE The site is located on the western side of Cowles Road, between Dalton Road and Awaba Street. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 12.19m to Cowles Road. The site falls 3.3m to the east at an average gradient of 9.6%. The site also includes a 1m cross fall to the north at an average gradient of 8.6%. The site presently contains a single storey detached dwelling. Surrounding development consists of single and two storey residential dwellings. The following known hazards and or policy affectations apply to the site: Likelihood of contamination No Landslip No Bushfire hazard No Acid sulfate soils No Foreshore building line No Regional cycling route No Road or lane widening No Undergrounding of utilities No Rock faces & retaining walls No Wetlands No

2.0 BACKGROUND On 9 December 2009 the following additional information and amended plans were requested: Deletion of the carport. An Arborist report due to works which necessitated tree removal. Reduction in size of the first floor balcony. Revised southern setback at the first floor level to comply with Councils 1.5m setback

guideline. Revised shadow diagrams.


Page 168

The response was received on 9 February 2010. 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The revised proposal consists of: New first floor addition comprising three (3) bedrooms (one with an en suite), rumpus room and

rear balcony. No concurrent approvals are sought under the Local Government Act 1993. 4.0 APPLICABLE PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning policies and control documents are of relevance to the development and were considered as part of the Section 79C assessment and form the basis of the Section 5.0 Planning Assessment: Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy – Building Sustainability Index: BASIX 2004 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) Mosman Residential Development Control Plan Notifications Development Control Plan Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 5.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT 5.1 NUMERIC CONTROLS SUMMARY TABLE LEP CONTROLS CONTROL PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Zoning: 2(c) Residential

Site Area 300m2 417.7m2 (no change) Yes

Building Height 8.5m 8.5m Yes

Wall Height 7.2m 6.2m Yes

Number of Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes

Gross Floor Area

Existing 155.4m2 N/A

Proposed 91.5m2 N/A

Total 246.9m2 N/A


Landscaped Area

Existing 93.24m2 127.7m2 N/A

Proposed 148.14m2 127.7m2 No


Page 169


Setbacks

First floor – north

First floor – south

1.5m

1.5m

1.4m

1.5m

No

Yes

Height Plane 45o from ground level along southern boundary

750 No



< 2 Hours No

BASIX Certificate Water – 40%

Thermal – Pass

Energy – 40%

Water – 40%

Thermal - Pass

Energy – 40%

Yes

5.2 STATE & LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS 5.2.1 Deemed SEPP - Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment)

2005 The deemed SEPP applies to the entire Mosman Municipal Council area identified on the Sydney Harbour Catchment Map. The site is not identified: (a) within the Foreshores and Waterways Area; (b) as a strategic foreshore site; (c) as a heritage item; (d) within the wetlands protection area; and therefore only Part 1 is applicable. Part 1 identifies aims of the plan from (a) to (h). The aims set out in Part 1 of the deemed SEPP have been considered and the application is consistent with these aims. 5.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 - Remediation of Land Under clause 7(1) (a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether the land is contaminated. The site has been used for residential purposes and there is no history to suggest that the site is contaminated. The application does not require further consideration under clause 7(1) (b) and (c) of SEPP 55. 5.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: Basix (BASIX) applies to the proposed development. The application was accompanied by a BASIX certificate. Conditions of consent have been included in the recommendation to ensure the fulfilment of the commitments listed in the BASIX certificate, as prescribed by clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.


Page 170

5.2.4 Mosman Local Environmental Plan 1998 (MLEP 1998) Zoning and Permissibility The site is zoned 2(c) Residential. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and are permissible with Council’s consent pursuant to the development control table at clause 11. Subject to recommended conditions the development satisfies zone objectives. Height The proposal complies with the relevant development standards for height. Subject to conditions the proposal is reasonable with regard to the objectives contained in Clause 13(1) of MLEP 1998. Floorspace Ratio The proposal complies with the Councils floorspace ratio development standard. Subject to conditions the proposal is reasonable with regard to the objectives contained within Clause 14(1) of MLEP 1998. Landscaped Area The increases in gross floor area results in a 20.4m2 deficiency in landscaped area, however this is assessed as reasonable for the following reasons: The existing amount of landscaped area is unaltered; Natural ground levels are maintained; and Useable ground level open space is maintained for recreation, landscaping and the

containment of urban run-off. The first floor addition will necessitate the loping of tree branches from a tree located on the neighbouring property to the south, being 132 Cowles Road. Councils Landscape Architect has reviewed the proposed development and has not raised objection to the proposal subject to conditions. These conditions primarily relate to the applicant engaging an Arborist to assess impacts on the tree and to employ best practices. These conditions are included within the recommendation. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The proposed development will not be readily visible from either the waterway or foreshore, as a consequence of the distance of the site from the waterway and the vegetation and development that exists between the site and the waterway. Excavation The proposal does not involve excavation. Heritage The site does not contain a heritage item, is not within immediate proximity of a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area.


Page 171

Aboriginal Heritage The site is not known to contain an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place nor is it in an area known to be sensitive to the discovery of Aboriginal objects or Aboriginal places. 5.2.5 Draft Mosman Local Environmental Plan 2008 (Draft MLEP 2008) The Draft MLEP 2008 was on public exhibition from 15 October 2009 to 4 December 2009. The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the provisions of Draft MLEP 2008. The proposed works are ancillary to the use of the site for a dwelling house and would be permissible with consent pursuant to the land use table of Draft MLEP 2008. The site is not a heritage item and is not within a heritage conservation area pursuant to Schedule 5 of Draft MLEP 2008. As at the date of this report the commencement of Draft MLEP 2008 in the exhibited form is neither imminent nor certain and accordingly its weighting pursuant to S79C is not determinative. 5.3 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.3.1 Mosman Residential Development Control Plan (MRDCP) Siting and Scale The proposal complies with the building height and floorspace ratio development standards. The proposed first floor contains a minor non compliance with the 1.5m minimum side setback control in that the northern elevation of the addition is set back 1.4m from the property boundary. This non-compliance will not cause unreasonable impacts on neighbouring amenity and is assessed as reasonable. In response to Council concerns the first floor addition was amended to comply with the minimum 1.5m side setback requirement on the southern boundary. Subject to conditions the proposal does not cause unreasonable overshadowing impacts. The proposed balcony is set back approximately 1.15m from the southern boundary, which does not comply with the minimum 1.5m setback requirement. Privacy impacts from the balcony are addressed in the assessment pertaining to privacy. The development is not of excessive bulk and scale and is reasonable with regard to the objectives and guidelines contained in Section 4.2 of MRDCP Views 132 Cowles Road raised concern with regard to the impact on their outlook and water views. A site inspection of 132 Cowles Road disclosed that two bedrooms within the first floor level currently benefit from northerly views to a small portion of Middle Harbour, to the east of Northbridge. These views are minor in nature and are partially screened by existing vegetation and the existing chimney at 134 Cowles Road.


Page 172

Photo No.1. Photo from eastern first floor bedroom

Photo No. 2 Photo from western first floor bedroom

In accordance with MRDCP views from the dining room, living room and outdoor balconies are of primary concern in relation to view loss. The Land and Environment Court Planning Principle (Tenacity) has also been taken into consideration during the assessment process. The proposal would likely result in a total loss of water views from the upper level bedroom windows of 132 Cowles Road. This is assessed as reasonable for the following reasons: The view loss is assessed as minor as it is currently from bedrooms rather than a living area

and is partially obscured by vegetation and built form. The view is across a side boundary and the retention of side views is often unrealistic. The view loss is from a proposal that complies with the height and floorspace ratio

development standards. Streetscape and Building Design The form, scale and siting of the proposed development is compatible with the prevailing development pattern in terms of overall shape and articulation of form. Cowles Road provides for a varied streetscape and the first floor addition is generally compatible with the host building.


Page 173

Privacy The proposed openings will not give rise to adverse privacy impacts to neighbouring dwellings. Objections have been received from 136 and 132 Cowles Road in relation to the first floor rear balcony and its impact on privacy. The concerns of 136 Cowles Road relate to overlooking within the rear yard. The concerns of 132 Cowles Road relate to the proximity of the balcony to the boundary and their living areas, the use of the balcony off a rumpus room rather than a bedroom and the reliance on existing vegetation to ameliorate overlooking into their rear yard. The privacy impacts from the balcony are assessed as reasonable for the following reasons: The existing vegetation will satisfactorily ameliorate undue overlooking into neighbouring

properties. It is acknowledged that vegetation cannot be solely relied upon to address overlooking, however it would be unreasonable to delete the balcony in its entirety, and, to require screening would result in further overshadowing to the south. Mutual overlooking between properties in this urban context is not uncommon.

The balcony is located off a rumpus room and may have more use than compared with a balcony off a bedroom. However the balcony is unlikely to be used for entertainment as it contains no weather protection. In addition the main living areas including the kitchen and an outdoor patio are located at the ground floor level.

Overshadowing The proposal results in overshadowing to the neighbouring property to the south being 132 Cowles Road. An objection has been received on this basis. MRDCP requires that dwellings should be sited and designed to maximise sunlight to north facing windows of living areas and principle areas of open space. North facing windows to living areas and main ground level private open space of neighbouring buildings should not have sunlight reduced to less than two hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The shadow diagrams submitted with the development application illustrate the impact of the overshadowing at 9.00am, 10.00am, 11.00am, 12.00pm, 1.00pm, 2.00pm and 3.00pm on June 21. In response to concerns from neighbours and Council, the applicant furnished revised overshadowing plans (3D modelling plans). Following further concerns from neighbours and Council, the applicant submitted amended shadow plans which detailed the proposed chimney adjacent to the southern elevation. In response to concerns regarding plan accuracy, the submitted shadow diagrams were carefully assessed. This assessment disclosed that the length and siting of shadows were consistent with the proposed wall heights and roof elements which contribute to overshadowing. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate a reasonable amount of solar access to the rear yard of 132 Cowles Road. 132 Cowles Road currently includes two north facing windows on the ground floor level. These windows are to a combined living and dining room. The eastern window is for the living room and the western window is for the dining room. These windows currently receive solar access in excess of Councils minimum two (2) hour minimum requirement. The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the dining room window will receive in excess of Council requirements receiving reasonable partial (greater than 50%) sunlight from 11.00am until just after 2.00pm and then full sunlight until 3.00pm. The living room will receive almost no sunlight at 9.00am and will receive partial sunlight (50%) from 11.00am until just before 12.00pm. The proposed chimney stack will then obscure the majority of available sunlight from


Page 174

12.00pm to 3.00pm at which time the window will be in full shadow. The living room window does not comply with Council's minimum two (2) hour requirement. This non-compliance is assessed as unreasonable. The overshadowing is a direct result of the existing chimney and its proposed extension. As the chimney does not have a significant amenity benefit for the applicant and its deletion would allow for complying solar access to 132 Cowles Road, it is recommended that this chimney be deleted in its entirety. Subject to the deletion of the chimney, the proposal would comply with Council's minimum solar access requirements and satisfy the objectives contained within Section 5.8 of MRDCP. Townscape Controls The site is located within the Ourimbah townscape. Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is reasonable having regard for the desired future character objectives and will not detract from the character of the townscape. 5.3.2 Mosman Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2006 Council’s Section 94A plan applies to this proposal. A condition has been included in the recommendation. 5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT REGULATION 2000 Applicable regulation considerations including demolition, fire safety, fire upgrades, compliance with the Building Code of Australia, compliance with the Home Building Act, PCA appointment, notice of commencement of works, sign on work sites, critical stage inspections and records of inspection may be addressed by appropriate consent conditions in the event of an approval. 6.0 COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL DEPARTMENTS OR STATE AUTHORITIES Council’s Landscape Designer raised no objection to the revised scheme, subject to conditions. Council’s Manager Assets and Services raised no objection to the revised scheme, subject to conditions. 7.0 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS The application was notified between 1 October 2009 and 19 October 2009. Three (3) submissions were received from the following properties: 138 Cowles Road; 136 Cowles Road; and 132 Cowles Road. Matters raised within public submissions and commentary on those matters is summarised below: Carport and the associated deletion of the pram crossing; Comment: The carport has been deleted from the amended scheme. Consequently the pram crossing on Cowles Road will not change. Loss of sunlight to living areas of 132 Cowles Road;


Page 175

Comment: Refer to the assessment pertaining to overshadowing within Section 5.3.1 of this report. Loss of outlook and views from upper level of 132 Cowles Road; Comment: Refer to the assessment pertaining to views within Section 5.3.1 of this report. Loss or privacy due to first floor rear deck; Comment: Refer to the assessment pertaining to privacy within Section 5.3.1 of this report. 8.0 CONCLUSION The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant planning guidelines and policies and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions. 9.0 APPLICATION DETAILS The applicant is Robert Thomas Ivett. The owner is Diane Hansen. The estimated value of works is $486,000.00. No disclosures with respect to the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment (Political Donations) Act 2008 have been made. 10. COUNCIL INSPECTION The Manager Development Services does not recommend that the site be inspected. MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' RECOMMENDATION That Development Application No. 8.2009.278.1 be approved subject to the following conditions: APPROVED PLANS AND DOCUMENTATION


Plan Nos. Date of plan Prepared by Survey Drawing No. 3580detailA.dwg – Revision A. Sheet 1 of 1

10 October 2008 C.M.S. Surveyors Pty Limited

Council Referenced – Dwg:1, Council Referenced – Dwg:2, and Council Referenced Dwg:3.

January 2010 Clontarf Building Design and Construction


Not dated No author

BASIX Certificate 4 August 2009 NSW Government Department of Planning


Page 176





Deletion of Chimney 2. To ensure reasonable solar access to 132 Cowles Road the chimney for the ground floor

living room adjacent to the southern boundary is to be deleted in its entirety. Details are to be included within the Construction Certificate application.







Sydney Water





Page 177




BASIX Certificate


Long Service Levy


Security Deposit









Page 178












Home Building Act








Page 179


have the potential to damage adjoining private land by way of falling objects
















Initial Arborist's Report

17. The applicant must engage a suitably qualified and experienced arborist (Australian Qualification Framework level 5 or above) to assess the impact of the proposed works and


Page 180

employ best practices (e.g. minimise compaction, soil build up and or excavation within primary root zones*) to ensure the longevity of trees to be retained. The arborist is to prepare and submit to Council a report prior to works proceeding documenting the measures to be employed and certifying that they have been implemented.

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





Partial Demolition


Asbestos Material











Page 181

Site Work Hours











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

Dust Control


Council Property



Page 182

Drainage

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






Arborist Inspections

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


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


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

Tree Preservation







Page 183

BASIX Certificate

35. To promote energy efficiency, the development is to be carried out in accordance with the commitments contained in the BASIX Certificate dated August 4, 2009.




Lighting

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

Toilet Facilities







Approved Plans





and prior to covering waterproofing in any wet areas, and


Page 184

prior to covering any stormwater drainage connections, and after the building work has been completed and prior to any occupation certificate












who carried it out.

BASIX Certificate




Follow-up Arborist’s Report

44. As part of the ongoing assessment of the trees to be retained, the arborist engaged by the applicant is to assess their health and any impacts suffered by them as a result of the proposed approved development. Findings are to be compiled in a detailed report to be



Page 185

provided to Council at the completion of construction and prior to the release of the Occupation Certificate which documents the following;


of the damage; and any future or on-going remedial work required to be carried out to ensure the long


PRIOR TO OCCUPATION







ADVICE / NOTES








Page 186













Page 187

EP/42 Tender for Balmoral Oval Contamination Capping and Creek Works

MOSPLAN REF: CEC and 5.06 REPORT BY: Manager Assets and Services, Craig Covich SUMMARY Tenders assessment for Balmoral Oval Contamination Capping and Creek Works. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Assets and Services recommends: That the contract for Balmoral Oval Contamination Capping and Creek Works, be awarded to Enviropacific Services at a lump sum price of $285,825.40. REPORT An open tender for Balmoral Oval Contamination Capping and Creek Works was advertised through the tenderlink electronic tendering system and in the Sydney Morning Herald. The works comprise the rehabilitation of two creeklines in the south and south western corner of Balmoral Oval the CEC component, and the capping of contaminated soils in the south western and northern edges of the oval, to complete the remediation of the Balmoral Oval as required in the Contamination Remedial Action Plan for the Oval. 68 companies downloaded a copy of the tender document and 15 companies attended the pre-tender site meeting. Tenders closed at 4:00pm on 25 February 2010. Council received tenders from the following 9 companies. 1. Civil Works NSW 2. T E Peck Excavations 3. Enviropacific Services 4. GC Civil 5. Murphy McCarthy and Associates 6. Australian Prestressing Services 7. City Civil 8. Transpacific Industries Group 9. East Labour Hire A tender assessment panel was established to assess the tenders in accordance with a pre-determined criteria and weightings as defined in the tender document. The panel comprised of the John Heptonstall, Contracts Engineer and John Grady, Team Leader Open Space. Tender prices submitted ranged from $212,092.00 to $612,905.00. Tenders were assessed in accordance with the tender assessment plan against weighted and non weighted criteria.


Page 188

Based on the tender assessment against the criteria, the tender assessment panel has selected Enviropacific as the first preferred tenderer. Enviropacific Services’ tender demonstrated their knowledge and experience in this field and they are considered the best qualified contractor to undertake the work based on the tender submissions. Enviropacific Services’ tendered price for the works was $285,825.40.


Page 189

EP/43 SEPP 1 Variations

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services, Angelo Falato SUMMARY Report in accordance with Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 - Reporting Variations to Development Standards. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends: That the report be received and noted. REPORT In accordance with the requirements of the Department of Planning Circular PS08-014 all applications determined where there has been a variation in development standards under SEPP No. 1 are listed in the attached table. COUNCILLORS' ATTACHMENTS Variations in development standards: 1 February - 28 February 2010


Page 190

EP/44 Development Applications

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02 REPORT BY: Manager Development Services, Angelo Falato SUMMARY Development Applications that have been received and dealt with by Council's Director Environment and Planning under the provisions of Section 378 (Delegated Authority) of the Local Government Act 1993. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends: That the report be received. DIRECTOR’S REPORT No Address/Description DA No. Applicant 1. 104 Ourimbah Road

Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including ground and first floor additions, new swimming pool, carport and front fence

8.2009.162.1 Mr John Fischlin

2. 31 Upper Almora Street (Refusal) Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house including new ground floor living/dining room, pool and terrace, lower ground floor pool storerooms and internal refurbishment

8.2009.246.1 Red Rock Design

3. 19 Elfrida Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house over two levels including ground and first floor additions, new carport, pergola, swimming pool and landscaping

8.2009.254.1 Mr Brian Urquhart

4. 22 Cowles Road Addition of a carport to an existing dwelling house

8.2009.257.1 Myall Developments Pty Ltd

5. 9 Kiora Avenue Enclosure of rear balcony to create a room to a residential dwelling

8.2009.263.1 Team 2 Design


Page 191

No Address/Description DA No. Applicant 6. 31 The Grove

New swimming pool, infill of existing pool, landscaping and enlargement of a deck to a dwelling house

8.2009.286.1 Mr A Todd & Mrs K Robbins

7. 32 Pindari Avenue Alterations and additions to a dwelling house including basement and ground floor extensions and reconfiguration, relocation of lower staircase, and changes to a sandstone boundary wall

8.2009.297.1 Drew Heath Architects

8. 6 Burrawong Avenue Demolition of existing swimming pool, construction of a new outbuilding and swimming pool to an existing dwelling house

8.2009.301.1 Building By Design

9. 102 Raglan Street(Refusal) Alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling house including extension of rear bedroom, new elevated rear decks and car parking space to the front

8.2009.308.1 Stoneybark Building Services

10. 2/2 Keston Street Alterations and additions to an existing multiple dwelling comprising first floor bedroom and ensuite addition and new stair to existing attic to Unit 2

8.2009.326.1 Mr Michael Blakeney

11. 17 Central Avenue Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new dwelling house and carport

8.2009.331.1 Felton Constructions (Syd) Pty Ltd

12. 43 Awaba Street Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house comprising new roof, openings, internal changes and deck

8.2009.349.1 Red Rock Design

13. 37 Killarney Street Demolition of the existing garage and terrace and erection of a new double garage, first floor covered terrace and changes to the landscaping and fence, to a dwelling house

8.2009.361.1 Mr Dieter & Mrs Mine Lange

14. Shop 8, 707 Military Road Shop fitout and signage

8.2010.19.1 Mosman Acupuncture and Massage Centre


Page 192

EP/45 Land and Environment Court Legal Expenses

MOSPLAN REF: 04.02.02

REPORT BY: Angelo Falato, Manager Development Services SUMMARY To update Council on litigation costs and the distribution of work to Council’s legal panel for development application related matters. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Manager Development Services recommends that the report be received. REPORT The purpose of this report is to keep Council up to date with development application related litigation costs incurred for the financial year and to inform Council which legal firm has been allocated work. The report also provides a brief synopsis on the outcome of litigation matters. Costs include fees for Council’s solicitors and any expert witnesses engaged but do not account for time spent by Council staff either engaged in defending the appeal or in undertaking administrative tasks associated with the carriage of the appeal. In some cases, work has been carried out but Council has not yet been billed or not billed to the full extent. 2008-2009 Budget Summary

Budget allocation 2009-2010 $180,000.00

Costs incurred up to 28 February 2010 $85,037.49

Projected Budget Surplus $52,443.77


Page 193

Costs Trend

COSTS TRENDS WITH 2009-2010 FIGURE

$0.00$50,000.00

$100,000.00$150,000.00$200,000.00$250,000.00$300,000.00$350,000.00$400,000.00

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

COSTS AS AT THIS MONTH IN PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10


Page 194

Pikes Lawyers

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 07-08 & 08-09 Appeal Costs

($)

09-10 AppealCosts ($)

Note

91 Ourimbah Road

13.2006.52.1 Garage built without approval

Order to demolish Order issued

Contempt proceedings heard & judgement handed down 23 February 2010, costs assessment on foot, bankruptcy proceedings on foot

72,334.81 23,592.21 1

868 Military Road

8.2009.376.1 Alts & adds to commercial building

Approval Pending Callover 10 March 2010 - -

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 28 FEBRUARY 2010 $41,539.39


Page 195

HWL Ebsworth

Address File Number Proposal Recommendation Council Decision Outcome /Status 07-08 & 08-09 Appeal Costs

($)

09-10 Appeal Costs ($)

Note

244 Raglan Street

8.2006.417.4

Modification of consent, subdivision & two new dwelling houses

Pending Pending Section 34 Conference 10 February 2010, adjourned until 10 March 2010

- 2,965.00

8 Raglan Street

8.2009.322.1 Multiple dwelling

Pending Pending Callover 24 February 2010 - -

21A Redan Street

9.2006.249.1 New dwelling house

Order to comply with consent

- Class 4 proceedings commenced 4 March 2010

- 15,492.10

8 Kahibah Road

9.2003.288.1

Alterations and additions to dwelling house

Order to comply with consent

Order issued Referred for regulatory compliance - 661.00

TOTAL COSTS THIS FINANCIAL YEAR UP TO 28 FEBRUARY 2010 $43,498.10

Notes: 1. Applicant ordered to pay Council's costs as agreed or assessed.


Page 196

RM/1 Rescission Motion EP/31 Bus Layover for Metrobus Route 30

SUBMITTED BY: Councillors Reid, Lopez and Halloran MOSPLAN REF: 11.07 RESCISSION MOTION That Council's decision in relation to item EP/31 Bus Layover for Metrobus Route 30 be rescinded. SUBSTANTIVE MOTION That Council prepare plans showing the exact details of distance for 2 bendy buses layover spaces in: A. Military Road Civic Lane extending east 38 metres;

B. Spit Road 38 metres somewhere between Punch and Clifford, ie outside the cinema;

C. Punch Street and the relationship to vehicle crossovers. Note by Acting General Manager The Council resolved on 2 March 2010 in relation to item EP/31 Bus Layover for Metrobus Route 30: That the Officer's Recommendation be adopted. The Officer's Recommendation as appeared on the Business Paper was: That:

A. The State Transit Authority's correspondence dated 23 February 2010 be noted;

B. Council note the alternative locations proposed by the STA;

C. The proposal on Military Road not be supported on the basis on impact to business parking in that area;

D. The proposal of Spit Road be considered only in the short term due to the future Bus Bay proposal at the Cinema site; and

E. The proposal of Punch Street be further considered as a long term option.


Page 197

RM/2 Rescission Motion CS/13 Outdoor Dining Approvals

SUBMITTED BY: Councillors Lopez, Sherlock, Moline and Reid MOSPLAN REF: 02.02.04 RESCISSION MOTION That Council's decision in relation to item CS/13 Outdoor Dining Approvals be rescinded. SUBSTANTIVE MOTION That Outdoor Dining Council fees be standardised for Mosman, Spit Junction and Balmoral. Note by Acting General Manager The Council resolved on 2 March 2010 in relation to item CS/13 Outdoor Dining Approvals: A. The fee structure for outdoor dining approvals and shop displays as currently provided in

the 2009/2010 Pricing Policy be incorporated in the 2010/2011 Pricing Policy for public exhibition, vis: Area Rate (psmpa) GST-inclusive Mosman and Spit Junctions $525 Three cafés at 11-21 The Esplanade $650 ($750 from 1/2/2011) All other areas $260

B. Council not allow any advertising on umbrellas, barriers and the like at Balmoral. C. Council allow the installation of roll up clear vinyl sides but there be no advertising. D. Council endorse the administrative requirement of approval holders to obtain the prior

written consent of Council for roll up blinds, barriers, umbrellas and the like to be placed within the approved area.

· information about procedures for the ordinary meeting of council open question time open...

Documents