item - reports · 2016. 4. 28. · 4 february 2016 a site visit was conducted by the consultant...

Item ____IPP07_______ - REPORTS -_______04/05/2016________

N O R T H S Y D N E Y C O U N C I L R E P O R T S

NSIPP MEETING HELD ON 4/05/2016

Attachments:

1. Site Plan 2. Amended Architectural plans

3. Amended Landscape plans 4. Independent Heritage Assessment Report

ADDRESS/WARD: 14 The Avenue, North Sydney (V)

APPLICATION No: DA404/15

PROPOSAL: Alterations and additions to existing heritage dwelling

including a two storey addition.

PLANS REF: Drawings numbered DA 04A, DA05A, DA06A, DA07A,

DA08A, DA09A, DA10, DA11A, dated 28-03-2016, prepared

by A Chandrahasan Architect, and received by Council on 7

April 2016.

OWNER: Anubhan Yadav; Tushar Yadav; Sunita Yadav & Satya Yadav

APPLICANT: Dr Satya Yadav

AUTHOR: Annelize Kaalsen of AK Planning

DATE OF REPORT: 22 April 2016

DATE LODGED: 11 November 2015

AMENDED: Yes (amended plans received 7 April 2016)

RECOMMENDATION: Deferred Commencement Approval

Report of AK Planning Page 2

Re: 14 The Avenue, North Sydney

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This development application seeks approval for the alterations and additions to the existing

heritage dwelling including a two storey addition within the eastern setback to Clark Road.

The application is reported to North Sydney Independent Planning Panel (NSIPP) for

determination due to the circumstances of the subject application and public interest.

The first round of notification has attracted eight (8) submissions. Amended plans were

lodged and after re-notification the proposal attracted three (3) submissions. In summary the

submissions raised particular concerns about visual and acoustic privacy; front building

setback; compliance with landscape area; potential view loss; large roof garden and

consistency within the Conservation Area. The assessment has considered these concerns as

well as the performance of the application against Council‟s planning requirements.

The subject site is constrained by a number of factors including its heritage listing, being

located within the Whaling Road Conservation Area; limited vehicular access (especially by

larger construction vehicles); topography (steep fall towards Clark Road as well as a cross

fall towards the south); its visibility from a number of public vantage points as well as having

the potential to impact on existing view corridors. Accordingly, any development on the site

would need to have a sensitive design approach having regard for all of these constraints.

Generally, any additions to an existing heritage dwelling would be located within the rear

setback, away from the principle elevation as well as behind and below the main ridge line.

However, in this instance the bulk of the proposed additions are located in front of the

principle elevation towards Clark Road.

The application as originally submitted failed to achieve a modest scale (including a number

of other non-compliances). After a meeting with the applicant amended plans were lodged

which in part addressed the concerns raised during the meeting. However further

amendments were deemed necessary in order to achieve a more sensitive, less dominant

design consistent with the scale form and materials of not only the existing heritage dwelling

but also the Whaling Road Conservation Area. Particularly this included reducing the size of

the “roof garden” and re-contouring or landscaping beneath the under croft area.

Following this assessment, and having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, it is recommended that a deferred

commencement approval be granted subject to the reduction in size of the roof garden,

detail landscape treatment of the under croft area, amendments to the schedule of heritage

conservation works and materials and finishes sample board.



Figure 1: Location Map

Property/Applicant Properties Notified

Submittors (1st notification) Submittors (2

nd notification)



1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval from NSIPP for alterations and additions to the existing single

storey heritage listed dwelling including a two storey addition. The additions are proposed to

be contained within two building elements/pavilions:

Building element 1 (east of the dwelling)

Lower ground floor (RL23.67): o a rumpus room serviced by a balcony; o 1 bedroom and balcony; o a study and a shared ensuite; o a lobby with access to the garden.

Ground floor (RL26.67): o provision of a roof terrace accessed via the existing veranda and via a

proposed timber walkway connecting with building element 2.

Building element 2 (south of the dwelling)

Lower ground floor (RL24.67): o A bedroom is proposed with ensuite accessed from a landing beside external

staircase between this proposed building and the existing dwelling;

Ground floor (RL27.67) o A bedroom with ensuite and a small balcony. Access is gained from the

connecting landing and new doorway in the existing dwelling.

The works also include the demolition of an existing carport and the provision of two

hardstand car spaces and turning bay at the rear of the property.

Alterations to the existing dwelling includes the replacement of damaged walls and floors so

as to create an open plan living, dining room and lobby; 2 bedrooms; a kitchen and laundry.

In total the proposed works maintain 5 bedrooms on-site and improved living rooms and

service rooms.

2. STATUTORY CONTROLS

North Sydney LEP 2013

Zoning – R2 Low Density Residential

Item of Heritage – Yes (Item of local significance)

In Vicinity of Item of Heritage – Yes (No. 16 Clark Road, north of the subject site)

Conservation Area – Yes (Whaling Road Conservation Area)

FSBL - No Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979

SEPP No. 55 – Remediation of Lands

SEPP (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Foreshore Development - No

Local Development



POLICY CONTROLS

North Sydney DCP 2013

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDING LOCALITY

The subject site is known as No. 14 The Avenue, North Sydney with a legal description of

Lot 1 DP 940094. The subject site fronts Clark Road in between Margaret and High Streets.

It has an irregular shape, with the following dimensions: -

Northern boundary: 50.02m

Southern boundary: 43.9m

Western boundary: 21.935m

Eastern boundary: 12.925m

The subject site has a total area of 857.7sqm. Vehicular and pedestrian access is gained via

The Avenue on the north-western corner of the subject site. The site topography falls steeply

midway along the site towards Clark Road as well as having a cross fall towards the south.

Existing development on the subject site consists of a single storey detached dwelling of

stone and tile construction. The building is listed under the North Sydney Local

Environmental Plan 20l3 as having local heritage significance (Item No. 0796), as well as

being located in the Whaling Road Heritage Conservation Area.

Figure 2: Aerial view of subject site and surrounding development



Photo 1: Existing dwelling viewed from The Avenue (rear)

Photo 2: Existing southern elevation



Photo 3: View of front of existing dwelling

The subject site is highly visible, being located on the ridge, from a number of public vantage

points (refer to Photos 4 below).

Photo 4: View from public walkway at Hayes Street



The subject site is situated within an established low density residential area characterised by

a mix of single and two storey dwellings. Adjoining the subject site to the north is a single

storey sandstone dwelling with a tiled roof, known as No 16 The Avenue, North Sydney

(refer to Photo 5). Adjoining the subject site to the south is a terraced landscaped area

associated with a high density residential flat building at No 50 Whaling Road.

Photo 5: No 16 The Avenue

To the west of the site attach dwellings Nos. 46 & 48 Whaling Road) sitting on a higher

elevation than the subject site.

Photo 6: No 46 & 48 Whaling Road with the high density apartment building in the background



4. RELEVANT HISTORY

A search of Council records revealed the following development history relevant to the

subject site:-

Previous applications on the subject site

Development Application (DA78/15) for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling

including new attic and two storey addition was withdrawn by the applicant on 14 June 2015.

Current Application

The history of the subject development application is summarised below: -

11 November 2015 A Development Application (DA404/15) for alterations and

additions to an existing heritage dwelling including two storey

addition was lodged with Council.

27 November 2015 to

11 December 2015

The original proposal was notified to adjoining property owners

and the Precinct Committee. A total of eight (8) submissions were

received including one from the Anderson Precinct.

4 February 2016 A site visit was conducted by the consultant planner and the

heritage consultant.

10 February 2016 Following the preliminary assessment, a request for further

information and amended plans was sent to the applicant advising

of the following issues: -

A preliminary Geo-Technical report to address engineering requirements;

The need for a site coverage and landscape area compliance diagram;

Details of the proposed earthworks;

Non-compliance with setbacks (front, and side) need to be addressed;

The form massing and scale was considered to be excessive;

The extent of roof garden to be reduced;

The landscape plans failed to provide sufficient details of the proposed roof garden or turning bay;

Potential view loss for the adjoining properties;

The need for height poles to assist the assessment of the proposed structures;

The inconsistencies on plans need to be addressed.

10 February 2016 Site visit of an adjoining property at No. 48 Whaling Road.

4 March 2016 A meeting was held with the applicant where draft amended plans

were presented and discussed. Additional comments and sketch

plans following this meeting was received on 11 March 2016.

Additional comments based on the draft amended plans as well as

the sketches were provided to the applicant on 17 March 2016.

The remaining issues were:-



Non-compliance with site coverage as a result of the enclosed balcony

Bulk and scale

The size of roof garden

The treatment of the undercroft area

7 April 2016 The applicant submitted the following additional information: -

Preliminary Geo-technical report

Photos of new height poles supported by survey plans

Amended plans

Amended landscape plans

Additional shadow diagrams

Comments with respect to the potential view loss

7 April 2016 to

21 April 2016

Amended plans were re-notified resulting in a total of three (3)

submissions including one from the Anderson Precinct.

18 April 2016 The applicant submitted a plan showing the landscape treatments

for the undercroft area.

5. REFERRALS

Building

The application has not been assessed in respect of the Building Code of Australia however a

condition requiring compliance with the BCA is recommended for imposition on the consent.

Furthermore, should significant changes be necessary to facilitate the release of a

Construction Certificate for the works included in this application, an additional Section 96

application may be necessary.

Heritage

The proposal was referred to an independent Heritage Planner (City Plan Heritage) whose

comments are provided within Attachment 4. In conclusion the report notes as follows:-

“In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development in its revised design is

generally consistent with the objectives and controls of the North Sydney LEP 2013

and North Sydney DCP 2013 for the reasons explained in this assessment report;

however, it requires further design amendments to the landscape drawings in relation

to the roof top terrace garden and the under croft area of the proposed eastern

pavilion. As a consequence, the proposed development is recommended for Deferred

Commencement Consent to obtain further revised landscape drawings as noted

below:

The roof top terrace garden to be largely retained as non-trafficable area with minimum trafficable area as detailed in the planning assessment report; and

The under croft area of the eastern pavilion to be treated in the form of rocky outcrop similar to that of examples provided in Appendix C of this report.”

See Attachment 4



Planning Comment

The independent Heritage Planner‟s comments are generally concurred with to ensure the

significance of the conservation area and heritage items. A deferred commencement

condition No. AA2 and AA3 are included at the end of this report.

The independent Heritage Planner also provided responses to the issues raised in the

submissions received in the heritage report.

Engineering

The amended application was referred to Council‟s Development Engineer who generally

supported the proposal on engineering grounds.

Councils Engineer has recommended conditions of consent to be imposed, which is

considered to adequately address engineering matters including the requirement for

stormwater.

Landscaping

The amended application was referred to Council‟s Landscape Development Officer, who

generally supported the application. A single tree is proposed to be removed on the site and

its removal is supported whilst the site contains three (3) trees that require protection.

The proposed Landscape Plan is satisfactory with the exception of the following areas:-

a) The piers and open voids below the proposed Lower Ground Level will be visible from Kurraba Road and the harbour and will detract from the overall setting of the

building. Consequently, additional screen planting is required.

Planning comment:

A condition of consent requiring improvements to the landscape treatments within the

undercroft area is required in a revised landscape plan (see Condition AA2)

b) The proposed roof garden on the Ground Level is satisfactory in principle, however, the plant species and other relevant details have not been provided, although referred

to on Drawing 13.18/DA05A. Details are required that indicate a lawn area or other

low ground covers and how this is to be maintained given the nature and location of

the roof garden. Plant species and numbers are to be provided, including plants that

trail downwards. A section is also required indicating that there is adequate soil

depth and drainage.

Planning comment:

The proposed roof garden has been reduced in size via a condition of consent. The

requirement of this condition would change the landscaping treatments along the edge

of the roof garden. In addition, the applicant lodged amended landscape plan L/01

Rev E, dated 01/04/2016 which includes plant species and details.



However, it is agreed that the non-trafficable area of the roof requires a landscape

treatment such as low ground covers and accordingly, a condition to that extend is

included.

c) Tall hedge plants are required at the base of the roof garden to screen the open voids.

Planning comment:

Noted and planting required to provide screening of the open voids (see Condition

C1(f)).

d) Screen planting is to be provided along the rear boundary to 42 to 48 Whaling Rd.

Planning comment:

Noted and included as a condition of consent (see Condition C1(c)).

e) The driveway is to be reduced in length, as it currently indicates parking for up to six vehicles and should be minimised to parking for two vehicles.

Planning comment:

Councils engineer raised no objection to the length of the driveway. However, it is

agreed that the length of the driveway can be reduced in lieu of more “green space”.

It is also noted that Council‟s engineer recommended a condition for porous paving to

the driveway (see Condition C11).

f) Detail of roof garden balustrade is to be provided. It is to be steel palisade and not glazed.

Planning comment:

The applicants Heritage Consultant has provided images of the proposed balustrade

which consists of a steel palisade. In addition, the Architectural drawings DA15

Material Palette identifies a “welded steel balustrade”. However, this detail has not

been annotated on the landscape plans and should be addressed in the amended

landscape plan (see Condition C1(h)).

Councils Landscape officer has recommended conditions of consent to be imposed, which is

considered to adequately address concerns raised above.

6. SUBMISSIONS

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and the Anderson Precinct seeking

comment between 27 November 2015 and 11 December 2015. Eight (8) submissions were

received. The amended plans were re-notified between 7 April 2016 and 21 April 2016. A

total of three (3) submissions were received during the second notification period at the time

of writing of this report.



The planning issues raised in those submissions are summarised below and addressed later in

this report (refer to Section 8).

Basis of Submissions

• Potential view loss from Nos. 46 & 48 Whaling Road and from No. 16 The Avenue • Non-compliance with site cover • Lack of carparking spaces (compared with proposed number of bedrooms) • New addition “hides” original historic sandstone dwelling • Large roof top garden • Proposal extending past the building line of No 16 The Avenue (inadequate setbacks) • Substantial development in front of existing heritage listed dwelling • Scale of the development is inconsistent with the Conservation Area. • Lack of traffic control during construction in Margaret Street and The Avenue

7. CONSIDERATION

The relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979, are assessed under the following headings:

7.1 SEPP 55 (Remediation of Land)

The provisions of SEPP 55 require Council to consider the likelihood of land contamination

and any remediation necessary to rehabilitate the site. Council‟s records indicate that the site

has previously been used for residential development and as such is unlikely to contain any

contamination; therefore, the requirements of SEPP 55 have been satisfactorily addressed.

7.2 SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

Having regard to the SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 (gazetted on 28 September

2005), and the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP 2005, the proposed

development is not considered to be detrimental to the Harbour and will not unduly impose

upon the character of the foreshore. As such, the development satisfies the provisions

contained within SREP 2005 and the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways DCP 2005.

7.3 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index – BASIX) 2004

As the proposal involves building works which exceed $50,000.00 in value and a valid

BASIX certificate is required detailing energy efficiency commitments to be undertaken with

the proposed works. It is noted that a valid BASIX certificate has been submitted (Certificate

Number A205722_04 dated 21 April 2016) and commitments where relevant have been

reflected on the plans as submitted. The development is acceptable in this regard.

7.4 NORTH SYDNEY LEP 2013

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the NSLEP 2013 as

detailed below:



7.4.1 Permissibility within the zone

The site is zoned „R2 Low Density Residential‟ under the provisions of the North Sydney

Local Environmental Plan 2013. Alterations and additions to the existing heritage dwelling is

a permissible form of development in this zone with development consent from Council.

7.4.2 R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives

The objectives of the R2 zone are:-

“To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

To encourage development of sites for low density housing, including dual occupancies, if such development does not compromise the amenity of the

surrounding area or the natural or cultural heritage of the area.

To ensure that a high level of residential amenity is achieved and maintained.”

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as it continues to

provide a diversity in housing type within the low density zone to meet the housing needs of

the community. The proposed development does not adversely affect the amenity of the

adjoining conservation area or heritage item and it maintains a reasonably level of residential

amenity to adjoining properties.

7.4.3 Provisions

The application has been assessed against the relevant numeric controls in NSLEP 2013 and

DCP 2013 as indicated in the following compliance tables.

North Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2013

Site Area – 857.7m²

Proposed Control Complies

Clause 4.2 – Heights of

Building

South addition = 5.1m

East addition = 6.2m to top of

slab and 7.2m to top of

railing/planterbox

8.5m Yes

Clause 5.10 – Heritage

Conservation

The site is local heritage listed

item, adjoins a heritage item (No.

16 The Avenue) and is located

within Whaling Road

Conservation Area

HIS to be provided Refer to

comments below

Clause 6.10 –

Earthworks

Excavation

Fill or re-contouring

Not have a detrimental

impact on environmental

functions and processes,

neighbouring uses,

cultural or heritage items

or features of the

surrounding land.

Refer to

comments below



CLAUSE 5.10 HERITAGE

The application has been assessed against the relevant heritage objectives and provisions as

contained in the North Sydney LEP 2013, particularly Clauses 5.10(1) and 5.10(4) of the

North Sydney LEP 2013 and generally found to be satisfactory as indicated in the report by

the independent heritage planner (City Plan Heritage) subject to further amendments as

detailed in the deferred commencement conditions (Conditions No. AA2 & AA3).

The proposed development will not detrimentally affect the established heritage significance

of the Whaling Road Conservation Area as it –

“Retains the existing heritage item and makes provision for its repair, conservation and restoration

Maintain a quality built environment through use of compatible materials reflecting the original and traditional materials of the existing heritage item

Doesn't make any changes to the existing site boundaries

Allows for views to and from the heritage item”

CLAUSE 6.10 EARTHWORKS

The proposed development would involve excavation to accommodate the proposed bedroom

4 and lobby on the new lower ground floor.

This aspect of the proposal has been assessed under the provisions of Clause 6.10(3) of

NSLEP 2013 and is considered satisfactory because there would be no disruption or

detrimental impacts on drainage patterns, soil stability or cause a change to the natural

features or vegetation within the subject site subject to recommended conditions of consent.

The stormwater drainage plan has been assessed by Council‟s Development Engineer and

found to be acceptable subject to a recommended condition of consent (refer to Condition

C12). Furthermore, Council‟s Development Engineer has recommended a condition

requiring a geotechnical certificate prepared by an appropriately qualified Geotechnical

Engineer certifying that the existing rock formations and substrate on the site is capable of

withstanding the proposed loads and excavation and providing protection for the adjoining

properties prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate (refer to Conditions C6).

The proposed excavation work is unlikely to cause adverse impacts on the amenity of the

adjoining properties during the construction phase of the proposed development with the

recommended conditions of consent relating to construction hours, air quality,

noise/vibration, health and safety and a requirement for the excavation to be carried out in

accordance with appropriate professional standards (refer to Conditions E11, E17, E21, and

F7).

Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal is therefore considered to be

satisfactory having regard to Clause 6.10 in NSLEP 2013.



7.5 NORTH SYDNEY DCP 2013

The application has been assessed against Part B, Section 1 „Residential Development‟ and

Section 10 Carparking‟ in NSDCP 2013 as detailed in the table below:

1.5.1.1 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2013 – Part B Section 1- Residential Development Complies Comments

1.2 Social Amenity Population Mix Yes The proposal would maintain the mixture of residential population,

level of residential accommodation and affordable housing within the

locality. Maintaining Residential

Accommodation

Affordable Housing

Housing for

Seniors/Persons with

disability

1.3 Environmental Criteria

Topography Yes

(via

conditions)

The proposed development is considered to generally respect the

natural landform of the site. Whilst acknowledging the proposed cut

and fill to accommodate the development, the proposed earthworks

are considered to be acceptable in the site circumstances for the

following reasons:

The proposed excavation is greater than the DCP requirement for a minimum setback of 1m from the side boundary on site (i.e.

1.5m from southern boundary and 1.8m from northern boundary).

The habitable living rooms of the proposed development are all located above existing ground level.

The proposal will provide deep soil landscaping within the setback areas of the site.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on drainage or the

structural integrity of adjoining properties (refer to Conditions

C5; C6 and F7).

The proposal is considered to generally satisfy O1 in Part B, Section

1.3.1 in NSDCP 2013.

Visual Impact Yes The subject site is highly visible from public vantage points. In

particular, it is visible from Neutral Bay Wharf (see Photo 7) as well

as the “walkway” on Hayes Street (see Photo 8).

Photo 7: View from Neutral Bay Wharf



Photo 8: View from walkway at Hayes Street

Photo 9: Proposed view from walkway

The proposal as amended will not cause an adverse impact on views

from the Harbour or from other public vantage points.

Views Refer to assessment below

Consideration has been given to the potential impacts on significant views currently enjoyed

by the adjoining properties including No. 16 The Avenue, No.50 Whaling Road and Nos 46

& 48 Whaling Road.

(a) No.50 Whaling Road

This adjoining property is a multi storey residential flat building located to the south-west of

the subject site. This development enjoys significant harbour/city skyline views towards the

south away from the subject site. Furthermore, the proposed development would not be

highly visible from No.50 Whaling Road and would have no material view impacts because

of the elevated positions of the apartment units and the steep terrain falling away from the

apartment building towards the eastern end of the subject site. In addition, the established

vegetation along the common property boundary would provide additional screening of the

new building elements within the subject site.



(b) No.16 The Avenue

The proposed addition would not cause a material view loss for the adjoining property at

No.16 The Avenue because the proposed eastern addition would be approximately 2m lower

than its living room window on the southern elevation. Furthermore, the proposal would

have no impact on views currently enjoyed by the living room window on the eastern

elevation of No.16 The Avenue.

(c) Nos. 46 & 48 Whaling Road

The first floor bedroom balcony of these adjoining properties currently enjoy filtered water

and district views.

In order to establish the reasonableness of the potential view loss an assessment against the

Land Environment Court planning principles on sharing of views in Tenacity Consulting v

Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, has been undertaken below. The Tenacity case applied a

four-point test to assess a proposal‟s view loss impacts as follows:

Step 1 – “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected”

Water views are valued more highly than land views; whilst iconic views are valued more

highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g.

a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than

one in which it is obscured.

The existing view from the rear balconies of No. 46 & 48 Whaling Road is a filtered water

view (see Photo 10 & 11 below) and is not considered iconic. The existing vegetation

obscures most of the existing view.

Photo 10: View from main bedroom balcony of No. 48 Whaling Road



Photo 11: View from main bedroom balcony of No. 46 Whaling Road

Step 2: “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are

obtained”

The view is obtained from a standing position (eye level) from the rear balconies off the main

bedrooms of Nos. 46 and 48 Whaling Road, towards the east over the subject site (refer to

Photos 12 & 13 below).

Photo 12: View of balconies of Nos. 46 & 48 Whaling Road



Photo 13: Standing view from No. 46 main bedroom

The view is obtained through a view corridor formed by the existing dwelling at No. 14 The

Avenue and the mature vegetation located at No. 50 Whaling Road (refer to Figure 3 below).

Figure 3: View corridor

Step 3: “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact”

The images below show the height pole erected on site by the applicant. The height pole

represents the southern additions ridge height at RL30.83 – see Photo 14 below.



Photo 14: View corridor showing height pole

(ridge of proposed southern pavilion at RL 30.83)

Figure 4: Proposed southern elevation

The ridge height of the proposed southern pavilion is at RL30.83 which sits just under the

height of the existing heritage dwellings ceiling level (at RL30.87). According to the survey

plan submitted with the application the balconies at Nos. 46 & 48 Whaling Road are at RL

32.9 being some 2m above the proposed ridge height. However, because of the topography

falling towards Clark Road the view is at a downward angle towards Neutral Bay and as such

there will be view implication from these balconies. It is noted that No. 48 will retain its

filtered water view towards the south across No. 50 Whaling Road (see Photo 15).



Photo 15: View towards the south from No 48 Whaling Road

Step 4: “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the

impact”

Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide an adequate visual analysis of the potential view

loss.

The proposed southern addition complies with the planning controls (except for a small non-

compliance by the balcony with the side setback provision). Generally, when a development

complies with the planning controls it would be considered more reasonable than a

development that breaches them. With a complying development the question now arises

whether a more skilful design could have prevented the view loss. The internal floor to

ceiling height has been kept to a minimum with a raked ceiling at 2.4m in order to keep the

wall heights and the ridge height to a minimum. In addition, the proposed lower ground level

has been excavated into the existing topography by 1.8m in a further attempt to keep with

ridge level low.

Because of the downward angle of the view and the location of the view corridor, any

structure within this view corridor would obstruct the current view enjoyed by Nos. 46 & 48

Whaling Road. As such the only way to ensure retention of the view is to locate the proposed

structure “outside” of the view corridor.

The independent heritage planner raised no concern with the placement / location of the

southern addition and its relationship to the existing heritage structure.

The fact that the views are filtered water views, not iconic, obtained at a steep downward

angle and the likelihood of existing vegetation located on No. 50 Whaling Road maturing

further and eliminating the view altogether should be considered.

Accordingly, having regard for the above the proposed development is considered

reasonable.



Solar Access Yes Due to the orientation of the site, the majority of the additional

shadow would fall upon the subject site as well the adjoining

property to the south (No 50 Whaling Road).

9am

A small amount of additional shadow to the western corner of No. 48

Whaling Road would be caused by the new elements. Most of the

additional shadow occurs to the landscape common open space at No.

50 Whaling Road.

12noon

There would be additional overshadowing to the landscape common

open space at No. 50 Whaling Road at midday.

3pm

Later in the day, there would be additional overshadowing to

landscape common open space at No. 50 Whaling Road.

The landscape area surrounding the apartment building at No. 50

Whaling Road consist of three terraces. The first terrace is at the

entrance level of the apartment building; the second terrace steps

town towards the north and the 3rd

terrace is located above the

rockface adjacent to Clark Road.

There are mature existing vegetation on No 50 Whaling Road located

along the common boundary which causes existing shadows.

The second terrace is densely vegetated in the area of additional

shadow and not “usable”. Moreover, the 3rd

terrace consists of

largely dense vegetation with no open space areas / usable areas

being too steep for recreational use.

Accordingly, it is considered that the additional shadow does not

result in a material impact.

The site and adjoining properties will retain the required 3 hours of

solar access between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice, in

compliance with Section 1.3.7, Part B of DCP 2013.

Acoustic Privacy Yes

(via

condition)

The amended plans reduced the area of the roof garden to 79.88sqm

(including the planter box) from the original 107.16sqm.

This is still a very large elevated area with the ability to allow for

more active instead of passive recreational use. The larger roof

garden and the frequency of use of such a space which could

reasonably be assumed to become the main outdoor entertainment

space, has the ability to result in acoustic privacy impacts to the

adjoining neighbour at No. 16 The Avenue.

Accordingly, a condition of consent (Deferred Commencement

Condition No AA1) has been introduced which reduces the

trafficable area of the roof garden to 18sqm. This allows the roof

garden to be setback further away from the common boundary with

No 16 The Avenue.



Vibration Yes

(via

condition)

The Geotechnical report submitted with the application

acknowledges that given the close proximity of the neighbouring

properties to the common boundaries. However, it is likely that any

proposed excavation will need to consider the effect of vibrations on

neighbouring properties as well as the protection of the heritage

structure.

A dilapidation survey of neighbouring buildings should be

undertaken prior to construction. A condition to that effect is

included a the end of this report (Conditions C3 and C4).

Visual Privacy Yes

(via

condition)

Refer to discussion below

Visual Privacy

North Elevation

Lower Ground Floor

Three new windows (study bathroom and bedroom) are proposed on this level. The finished

floor level (RL 23.67) is well below that of the adjoining property at No. 16 The Avenue with

little to no opportunity for overlooking from these windows.

Ground floor

This application does not include any new windows on this level.

Southern Elevation

Lower Ground Floor

New windows are proposed within the bedroom lobby and rumpus room and a new balcony.

The potential for overlooking from these spaces is limited because of the existing vegetation

at No. 50 Whaling Road. In any event the area that would be overlooked is limited to an un-

used densely vegetated open space which is too steep to be used for recreational purposes.

Accordingly, any overlooking from these spaces is considered acceptable.



Photo 16: showing dense existing vegetation to No. 50 Whaling Road

Roof Garden (RL26.67)

The elevated roof garden has the ability to allow for active instead of passive recreational use.

This large space is inconsistent with the general character of the conservation area and its

elevated position forward of the main front façade of No 16 The Avenue, has the potential to

overlook the rear yard of No. 16.

Generally, private open spaces on roofs are not permitted. Consistent with Section 1.3.10 P8

the amended roof garden/terrace (as per Deferred Commencement Condition No. AA1) is

considered acceptable because: -

the roof garden is to be setback further from the common boundary with No. 16 The Avenue by 6.6m as well as being setback from the proposed eastern edge of the roof by

3.6m (well behind the main front façade of No 16 The Avenue. In addition, the proposed

500mm deep planterbox pushes the activity further away from the common boundary.

The potential for overlooking from the reduced trafficable area is considered minimal.

The reduced trafficable area also lessens potential for noise nuisance.

The roof garden / terrace has been setback to increase the distance of the external walls of the northern and eastern elevations by more than one metre. However, it has only been

setback 800mm from the southern edge of the proposed addition (should the planter box

be included it is setback 1.3m from the floor level below). This is considered appropriate

because it directs activity as far away from No. 16 The Avenue as possible. No structure

adjoins the common boundary to the south with overlooking of an un-used open space

screened by existing mature vegetation. In addition, the roof garden as amended will be

setback 2.6m from the common southern boundary.

A condition of consent has been recommended requiring a reduction in the trafficable area of the roof garden to 18sqm (internal dimensions of 4.5m x 4m) – refer to Figure 5

below.



Due to the steep topography there is no other appropriate ground level space for outdoor recreation off the existing primary living room.

Figure 5: Reduction in roof terrace (NTS)

1.4 Quality built form Context Yes The proposed development is considered contextually appropriate

Streetscape Yes The location of the site and surrounds on the ridge well above Clark

Road, lend itself to no perceived streetscape character. The dwellings

are not visible from Clark Road and the site does not have a

“streetscape” relationship with Clark Road.

The proposal does not alter the existing footpaths, kerbs or guttering

of Clark Road nor of The Avenue.

Siting Yes The characteristic building orientation and siting is maintained. The

heritage planner raised no concern with the sitting/location of the

proposed additions, and notes as follows:-

“The proposed pavilion addition, in particular the southern pavilion,

generally maintain these characteristics in terms of siting as a

separate addition, roof form, scale, bulk, fenestration and materials

and finishes”



“Although additions to the front of a heritage item is not favoured in

principle, the proposed eastern pavilion is one-storey lower than the

original cottage with its roof terrace aligning the veranda floor, and

as such it will not obscure the existing presentation of the heritage

item when viewed from the water. Further design and landscape

treatment modifications are requested as part of the deferred

commencement.

Setback – Front

Match the alignment of the

primary façade of

adjoining buildings

No See discussion below.

Setback – Side Ground floor (up to 4m) =

900mm

2nd storey (up to 7m) = 1.5m

3rd storey (above 7m) = 2.5m

No

(via

condition)

A DCP side boundary setback compliance table is provided below.

Elevation

Proposed Control Complies

Lower Ground Level:

- N Elevation

- S Elevation

Balcony off Bedrm 4

Rumpus Rm

Balcony

1.8m

1.3m

1.6m

1.2m

900mm

900mm

900mm

900mm

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ground Floor:

- N Elevation

Roof Level

Roof Garden - S Elevation

Balcony off Bedrm 3

Roof Level

Roof Garden

1.8m

2.1m

1.1m

1.2m

1.7m*

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

1.5m

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

* To be amended by condition to provide 2m setback.

Setback - Rear Yes No change to the existing rear setback. Two carstand spaces are

proposed however there are no structures proposed.

Front Setback

The front alignment of the primary façade of premises along Clark Road is shown in Figure

6 below. It is noted that the alignment of No. 18 and 16 The Avenue are not parallel to Clark

Road (as demonstrated by the dotted red line). Figure 6 demonstrate that generally there is

no consistent front building setback to Clark Road because of the topography and alignment

of the road.

Although the proposed font setback aligns with the front balcony (no further forward) of No.

16 The Avenue, the proposed eastern balcony; part of the bedroom 5 and the rumpus room,

do not comply with the front setback requirement (See the red hatching on Figure 7 below).



Figure 6: Existing front alignments along Clark Road shown dotted

Figure 7: Proposed setback



The red dotted line on Figure 7, delineates the building alignment of the adjoining property

(No. 16 The Avenue) parallel to Clark Road, whilst the blue dotted line delineates the

proposed setback which is more consistent with the alignment established by No. 16 and 18

The Avenue as demonstrated on Figure 6. The proposed front setback is considered

appropriate having regard for the building alignment established by Nos. 16 and 18 The

Avenue.

Side setback

Although the roof garden and under croft area cannot be defined as a “storey”, the wall

heights or height above NGL, is well over 4m on both the southern and northern elevations.

The amended plans opened the enclosed front balcony thereby reducing the visual bulk on

both elevations.

The northern elevation (GF) allows for generous setbacks complying with the required 1.5m.

On the southern elevation the roof garden has been reduced in size which resulted in setting it

further back from the southern boundary to now allow for a 2.6m side setback complying

with the control.

The only remaining non-compliance is to the balcony off bedroom 3. This is a very minor

non-compliance limited to a wedge shape with the bulk of this addition complying with the

side setback – (refer to Figure 8)

Figure 8: Red wedge indicating minor non-compliance with side setback

Notwithstanding the non-compliance with the front and side setbacks, the proposal still

achieves the objectives of the setback control in that:-



There is no consistent characteristic pattern for the front setbacks to Clark Road. The proposal is no further forward that the alignment of No.16 The Avenue and is

consistent with the alignment established by Nos. 16 & 18 The Avenue;

The amended plans opened up the proposed front balcony minimizing the bulk within the southeastern corner;

The side setback non-compliance is very minor with no built form directly adjoining the non-compliance;

The non-compliance with the front and side setback does not adversely impact on the amenity of existing dwellings in terms of overshadowing or overlooking.

Form Massing Scale

Built Form Character

Yes

(via

condition)

The amended plans have open-up the proposed front balcony

removing the solid walls on both the northern and southern

elevations. In addition, the solid wall to the undercroft area was

removed in lieu of an open undercroft area. The removal of the solid

walls (undercroft and balcony) resulted in removing the continuous

wall plane, minimizing the visual massing on both the southern and

northern elevations.

The eastern addition is proposed to be constructed on piers resulting

in a large undercroft area. The independent heritage planner has

requested that this undercroft area to be re-contoured or landscaped to

allow for a rocky outcrop treatment (see examples below). The

benefit of this rocky outcrop is that it will maintain the current

vegetated character of the site whilst providing a single storey

presentation for the eastern addition being more compatible in scale

and appearance. Unfortunately, the undercroft landscape detail

submitted by the applicant is not considered adequate and a deferred

commencement condition is included for amended detail to the

undercroft area (Deferred Commencement Condition No AA2).

If this was not a heritage listed dwelling the addition to the east/front

would likely be considered appropriate. It complies with the building

height, the front addition aligns with the balcony of No. 16 The

Avenue and generally is consistent with the building alignment

established by No 16 & 18; and it complies with the side setbacks.

The addition, being set below the veranda of the existing dwelling, is

not readily visible from public vantage points. Accordingly, its built

form and massing, as amended is considered appropriate.

Rocky outcrop - Example 1



Rocky outcrop - Example 2

Dwelling Entry Yes The proposal does not alter the existing dwelling entry located along

the common boundary to the north as well as to the south, (other than

restoring the veranda roof)

Roofs Yes The existing chimney and roof tiles are retained with no changes to

the roof form.

The proposed southern addition reflects the hipped roof form and use

of roof tiles.

A pitch roof form is considered to obscure more of the existing

heritage dwelling compared with the flat roof form proposed to the

eastern addition. The proposed roof form has been made in the form

of a rooftop garden in an attempt to reduce its visibility and prevent

any obstruction to the original cottage. As such the proposed roof

form would have no negative material impact upon surrounding

dwellings and is considered appropriate.

Materials Yes

(via

condition)

The new proposed finishes include rough cast (pebble dash) render

and paint whilst the existing sandstone walls are retained. The new

roof tiles are to match the existing tiles in colour and profile.

The heritage consultant planner requested additional details on

materials and finishes to be provided as part of the Deferred

Commencement Condition AA3.

Front Fences N/A N/A

1.5 Quality Urban Environment Vehicle Access and

Parking

Yes

(via

condition)

Vehicular access to the site is off The Avenue, a very narrow road

with no kerbs and gutters (see Photo 17 below).



Photo 17: The Avenue looking towards the entry of the subject

site

The application proposes to demolish the existing single carport and

construct a new driveway and two hardstand car spaces on site. The

proposal also allows for a turning bay so that the vehicles can enter

and leave the site in a forward direction.

Council‟s Development Engineer has raised no objection other than

imposing a condition (Condition C11) of consent for porous paving.

Site Coverage

Max. of 35%

No Required max. = 300.2sqm

Proposed = 302sqm or 35.2%

The area calculation diagram submitted with the original application

excluded the lower ground floor balcony from the site coverage.

According to the definition of site cover within the NS DCP Section

1.5.5, this area should be included as site cover as it is an

“enclosed/covered” space. It allowed for a solid wall to the south and

north as well as having a roof over, extending to the edge of the

balcony.

Accordingly, the site cover was 302sqm + 19.3sqm = 321.3sqm or

37.4%

The amended plans removed these enclosing walls and allowed for an

unenclosed balcony resulting in a lesser non-compliance.

The non-compliance is considered minor and the application still

achieves the objectives of the control in so far as:-

The non-compliance is very minor and does not result in an over development of the site.

The density remains as a single dwelling.

The building footprint still ensure adequate provision for landscaped area and private open space

The proposal complies with the required landscaped area and un-built area.

Therefore, the non-compliance is considered to be acceptable.



Landscape Area

Min. of 40% of site area

Un-built Area

Max of 20% of site area

Yes

Yes

Landscape Area:

Proposed = 393sqm or 45.8%

Un-built Area:

Proposed = 163.3sqm or 19%

Excavation Yes

(via

condition)

The applicant submitted a geotechnical report dated 12 January 2015

which states as follows:-

“Prior to bulk excavation, further assessment of the heritage

building footings will be required as described in Section 7.1”.

“The excavation of overburden soil (including any filling and

colluvial material susceptible to slope instability) and any

extremely low and very low strength sandstone should be readily

achieved using conventional earthmoving plant. Medium and

greater strength rock will probably require the use of pneumatic or

hydraulic rock breaking equipment”.

The applicant also submitted a letter from Douglas partners dated 24

February 2016 with regards to the amended plans which states:-

“The investigation and associated comments provided in DP’s

previous geotechnical report dated 12 January 2015 (Project

84658) are generally considered appropriate for the new

development plans”.

Council‟s Development Engineer is satisfied with the development,

subject to recommended conditions of consent, indicating that the

excavation is unlikely to adversely affect natural water runoff and

underground water tables and/or the structural integrity of adjoining

properties (refer to Conditions C2, C3, C4 and C5).

Landscaping Yes

(via

condition)

A single tree is proposed to be removed as it is located within the

proposed driveway area. The landscape officer raised no concern

with the removal of this tree and recommended protection measures

for the three (3) trees on site.

As discussed within Section 5 the Landscape Development Officer

recommended an amended landscape plan to address landscaping

matters that were considered deficient (refer to Condition C1).

Front Gardens Yes

(via

condition)

Council's Landscape Development Officer recommended an

amended landscape plan. In addition a condition of consent is

imposed which seeks to provide a detailed undercroft landscape plan

which may also include detail of the front garden treatment.

Garbage Storage Yes

(via

condition)

A standard condition is recommended to ensure adequate storage

facilities will be provided for waste and recyclable materials.

Site Facilities Yes Adequate site facilities will continue to be provided on site with

adequate area available for clothes drying and the like.

1.6 Efficient Use of Resources

Energy Efficiency Yes The applicant has submitted a BASIX certificate to demonstrate

compliance with energy efficiency requirements.

Stormwater Management Yes Councils engineer raised no concerns subject to conditions of consent



Section 10 Heritage and Conservation

Heritage and

Conservation

Yes

(via

condition)

An independent heritage assessment has been undertaken by City

Plan Heritage (see Attachment 4). The report concludes that the

proposal is generally consistent with the objectives and controls of

the North Sydney LEP 2013 and the DCP 2013 for the reasons

explained in this assessment report; however, it requires further

design amendments to the landscape drawings in relation to the roof

top terrace garden and the under croft area of the proposed eastern

pavilion. A condition of consent (Condition AA1; AA2 and AA3) has

been included at the end of this report

Neutral Bay Planning Area (Whaling Road Conservation Area)

The application has been assessed against the relevant controls in Section 7.3 in Part C of the

NS DCP 2013 relating to the Neutral Bay Planning Area and the Whaling Road Conservation

Area. The proposal will generally be consistent with these policies.

Large rear decks are uncharacteristic elements within a Conservation area. Consequently the

reduced roof garden (via Deferred Commencement Condition No. AA1) is unlikely to result

in any adverse impact on neighbouring properties nor will it be visible from the public

domain and as such is considered appropriate.

SITE SUITABILITY

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed works given that the zoning permits the

proposed alterations and additions.

The subject site is constrained by a number of factors including its heritage listing, being

located within the Whaling Road Conservation Area; limited vehicular access (especially by

larger construction vehicles); topography (steep fall towards Clark Road as well as a cross

fall towards the south); its visibility from a number of public vantage points as well as having

the potential to impact on existing view corridors. Accordingly, any development on the site

would need to have a sensitive design approach having regard for all of these constraints.

The development has been designed to step down the site as far as possible to maintain the

natural landform and sited to minimize impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The independent heritage planner raised no concern with the placement / location of the

additions and its relationship with the existing heritage structure.

PUBLIC INTEREST

The recommended approval of the application is unlikely to offend the public interest for the

reasons discussed throughout this report.

ALL LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

All likely impacts of the proposed development have been considered within the context of

this report.



ENVIRONMENTAL APPRAISAL CONSIDERED

1. Statutory Controls Yes

2. Policy Controls Yes

3. Design in relation to existing building and Yes

natural environment

4. Landscaping/Open Space Provision Yes

5. Traffic generation and Carparking provision Yes

6. Loading and Servicing Facilities N/A

7. Physical relationship to and impact upon adjoining Yes

development (Views, privacy, overshadowing, etc.)

8. Site Management Issues Yes

9. All relevant S79C considerations of Yes

Environmental Planning and Assessment (Amendment) Act 1979

SUBMITTERS CONCERNS

The proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and the Milsons Precinct seeking

comment between 27 November 2015 and 11 December 2015. Eight (8) submissions were

received. The amended plans were re-notified between 7 April 2016 and 21 April 2016. A

total of three (3) submissions were received following the second notification period at the

time of writing of this report.

The issues raised by the submissions are summarised and addressed below:-

• Potential view loss from No. 46 & 48 Whaling Road and from No. 16 The Avenue

Comment:

As detailed earlier in this report, a view loss analysis was carried out in accordance with the

four (4) step process adopted by Commissioner Roseth of the NSW Land and Environment

Court centering around Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140

(also known as the Tenacity Test) to ascertain the potential view impacts on No 46 & 48

Whaling Road. It was concluded that the proposal is considered reasonable.

The submission from No 16 The Avenue raised a concern with the type of planting within the

proposed planter boxes and the height of these plants as well as the potential of sun shade

structures to cause view loss.

In this regard, it is noted that the balcony of No. 16 The Avenue is situated well forward of

the roof garden as amended via condition of consent whilst the side window sill of No. 16



The Avenue is at RL28,71 being 2m above the proposed finished floor level of the roof

garden at RL26.67. Nonetheless a condition of consent is imposed so that no permanently

fixed shade structures be erected on the reduced roof garden (Condition No. I1). With

regards to the proposed planting it is noted that even if the suggested plants (coastal rosemary

and dwarf lomandra) grow to its full height of 1m and 500mm respectively, with a planter

box height of 450mm, it would remain below the window height and does not warrant a

condition of consent.

• Non-compliance with site coverage

Comment:

Refer to the site coverage analysis within the body of this report. In conclusion the non-

compliance is considered minor and the development still enables adequate landscape area on

the site.

• Lack of carparking spaces (compared with proposed number of bedrooms)

Comment:

North Sydney Councils DCP Section 10 requires a maximum of 2 carparking spaces for

dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more. The proposal allows for two hardstand spaces

complying with this requirement.

• The eastern setback is inconsistent with No 16 The Avenue (inadequate setbacks)

Comment:

The amended plans has resulted in the eastern addition aligning with the front balcony of No

16 The Avenue. Refer to the detailed discussion on setbacks above.

• New addition “hides” original historic sandstone dwelling • Substantial development in front of existing heritage listed dwelling

Comment:

Although the eastern pavilion is located to the front of the existing heritage item, due to the

location of the built form, one storey below the existing cottage its impact will be negligible.

Similarly, its roof form has been made in the form of a rooftop garden to reduce its visibility

and prevent any obstruction to the original cottage. The recommended treatments to the under

croft area of this pavilion will ensure the buildings presents as a single storey pavilion rather

than a two-storey pavilion and was considered appropriate by the independent heritage

planner for reasons detailed in the heritage report.

• Scale of the development is inconsistent with the Conservation Area. • Large roof garden



Comment:

The application was referred to an independent Heritage Planner who has raised no in-

principle objection to the proposed development on heritage grounds subject to the

imposition of appropriate conditions. The design of the proposed development is considered

by the independent heritage planner to be generally consistent with the characteristic built

form within the conservation area and would not have any unreasonable impacts on the

significance of the heritage listed item.

Roof garden:

The size of the roof garden has been raised with the applicant and amended plans were

lodged which reduced its size. However, the roof garden as amended was not considered

sufficient so a Condition of Consent is recommended, reducing the roof garden further.

Eastern/Front addition:

The eastern addition has been designed to provide a simple low and less dominant structure.

The existing form and fabric of the original heritage dwellings are still discernible from the

proposed additions. The proposed eastern addition will not obscure the grouping of Nos. 14

& 16 The Avenue, which will remain visible with matching roof forms from public vantage

points. It is considered that the two heritage items will not loose its collective significance.

In addition, the independent heritage planner notes as follows:-

“The proposed front (eastern) pavilion is sited one-storey lower than the heritage item,

and as such will maintain the visibility of the existing cottage. The proposal is for a one

storey pavilion but due to the steep topography it presents a two-storey appearance. To

reduce its two-storey appearance further design modifications are requested under

deferred commencement conditions to ensure its single-storey presentation is achieved”.

• Lack of traffic control during construction in Margaret Street and The Avenue

Comment:

Appropriate conditions of consent are recommended to minimise adverse noise, traffic and

environmental impacts during demolition, excavation and construction (refer to Conditions

C17, E4, E5, E11, E17, F7, and F8).

CONCLUSION

The development application has been assessed against the North Sydney Local

Environmental Plan 2013 and the North Sydney Development Control Plan 2013 and

generally found to be satisfactory.

The development is compliant with the building height control in North Sydney LEP 2013

and the landscape area control in the NSDCP 2013. The development does however results

in a minor non-compliance with the maximum site coverage as well as a non-compliance

with the side building setback (to the south) and the front building setback.



These non-compliances are considered acceptable and is unlikely to result in an adverse

impact for adjoining properties.

The amended plans have reduced the roof garden however this reduction was not considered

sufficient and a condition of consent is imposed reducing the size of the roof garden/terrace

to a maximum trafficable area of 18sqm.

The eastern addition is proposed to be constructed on piers resulting in a large undercroft

area. The independent heritage planner has requested that this undercroft area to be re-

contoured or landscaped to allow for a rocky outcrop treatment. The benefit of this rocky

outcrop is that it will maintain the current vegetated character of the site whilst providing a

single storey presentation for the eastern addition being more compatible in scale and

consistent with the conservation area. Unfortunately, the undercroft landscape detail

submitted by the applicant is not considered adequate and a deferred commencement

condition is included for amended detail to the undercroft area, in order to ensure that this

area is appropriately designed for a heritage item prior to the issue of the operative consent.

Having regard to the provisions of Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 the application is

considered to be satisfactory and is therefore recommended for Deferred Commencement

Approval.

RECOMMENDATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 80 OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

ACT 1979 (AS AMENDED)

THAT the North Sydney Independent Planning Panel, under the delegation of the General

Manager as the consent authority, grant deferred commencement consent to Development

Application No. 404/15 for alterations and additions to the existing heritage building, subject

to the following site specific and the attached conditions of consent:

AA. Deferred Commencement Conditions

Reduction in roof garden

AA1. The roof garden on the ground floor plan is to be reduced in size as follows (refer to

plans marked up in red): -

a) Reduce the maximum trafficable area to 18sqm (4.5m x 4m internal / excluding the planter boxes);

b) Set the roof garden back from the common northern boundary with No. 16 The Avenue by 6.6m (measured from the common boundary to the planter box);

c) Set the roof garden back from the proposed eastern edge by 3.6m (measured from the roof edge to the planter box);

d) Set the roof garden back from the proposed southern edge by 800mm (measured from the roof edge to the planter box;

e) Planter boxes are to have a maximum width of 500mm; and f) Balustrades shall only be provided along the perimeter of the trafficable area of

the roof garden.

(Reason: To maintain visual and acoustic privacy)



Undercroft Landscape Details

AA2. A landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape

Architect detailing the treatment of the undercroft area located underneath the eastern

addition, must be submitted to Council for the written approval of Council‟s

Landscape Development Officer.

The landscape plan must allow for a rocky outcrop treatment similar to the examples

provided within the Heritage Assessment Report dated 22 April 2016, prepared by

City Plan Heritage and submitted to Council on 22 April 2016.

(Reason: To ensure the final design of the proposed development compliments

the characteristics of the heritage item and the conservation area)

Additional Heritage documentation

AA3. The following additional heritage documentation must be submitted:-

a) The submitted Schedule of Conservation Works prepared by Robert Moore is to

be amended to include heritage specifications for carrying out works in

accordance with traditional methods and for each trade such as stone mason,

demolisher, bricklayer, plasterer etc.

b) Details of the proposed external paint scheme are to be submitted to Council for the written approval of Council‟s Team Leader Assessment in consultation with

the Consultant Heritage Planner, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Unpainted surfaces, eg-

brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be

used. This should include an updated material sample board.

c) Details of the reconstruction of the eastern verandah should be provided indicating all required works and large scale details where appropriate.



Amendments to the Landscape Plan

C1. The following amendments to the Landscape Plan are to be provided by a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape Architect :-

a) 1 x replenishment tree at 45 L pot size (minimum) must be provided within the garden to the west of the dwelling. It must have a mature height greater than 5

m.

b) Paved areas are to be reduced to minimum requirements for parking for two vehicles as the driveway is unnecessarily long. Detail of paver design for the

driveway and dimensions of paved areas to be provided.

c) Screening hedge plants must be provided along the boundary of 42-48 Whaling Rd. Nominated screen plant specimens must be 15L pot size

(minimum).



d) The non-trafficable area of the roof garden needs to include low maintenance landscape treatment. Details are to be provided on the landscape plan.

e) A detail section of the roof garden is to show the soil depth and drainage. f) Show the detail design of the garden to the east of the roof garden indicating

tall shrub species at 45 L pot size that grow to 3 m height (minimum) to screen

the open voids, climbing plants at 5L pot size, in addition to the rockery and

the understorey plants.

g) Detail of the vehicular gate to be provided to property boundary to The Avenue. It is to have a maximum height of 1m and have either a timber picket

or steel palisade construction.

h) Detail of roof garden balustrade is to be provided. It is to be steel palisade and not glazed.

An amended landscape plan complying with this condition must be submitted to the

satisfaction of Council‟s Landscape Development Officer for the written approval

prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate. The Certifying Authority must

ensure that the amended landscape plan and other plans and specifications submitted

fully satisfy the requirements of this condition.

(Reason: To ensure a desirable landscaping outcome and to protect residential

amenity)

Annelize Kaalsen Robyn Pearson

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER ASSESSMENT

Lara Huckstepp

A/MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

September 2013 v1

NORTH SYDNEY COUNCIL CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL

14 THE AVENUE, NORTH SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 404/15

AA. Deferred Commencement Conditions This consent shall not operate until the following deferred commencement condition(s) has/have been satisfied. The applicant must satisfy Council as to the matters specified in the deferred commencement conditions within 12 months of the date of the grant of this consent. If the applicant fails to satisfy Council as to the matters specified in the deferred commencement conditions within 12 months of the dated of the grant of this consent this consent will lapse in accordance with Section 95(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. NOTE: Consideration should be given to providing the evidence to Council to allow sufficient time consider the same and form a view as to whether the deferred commencement conditions are satisfied or not. You are also advised of your appeal rights under clause 95(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, which provides that: If the consent authority has not notified the applicant within the period of 28 days after the applicant’s evidence is produced to it, the consent authority is, for the purposes only of section 97 of the Act, taken to have notified the applicant that it is not satisfied as to those matters on the date on which that period expires. Reduction in roof garden AA1. The roof garden on the ground floor plan is to be reduced in size as follows (refer to

plans marked up in red): -

a) Reduce the maximum trafficable area to 18sqm (4.5m x 4m internal / excluding the planterboxes);

b) Set the roof garden back from the common northern boundary with No. 16 The Avenue by 6.6m (measured from the common boundary to the planterbox);

c) Set the roof garden back from the proposed eastern edge by 3.6m (measured from the roof edge to the planterbox);

d) Set the roof garden back from the proposed southern edge by 800mm (measured from the roof edge to the planterbox;

e) Planterboxes are to have a maximum width of 500mm; and f) Balustrades shall only be provided along the perimeter of the trafficable area

of the roof garden.

(Reason: To maintain visual and acoustic privacy)

ATTACHMENT TO IPP07 - 04/05/2016 41 Page 41

14 THE AVENUE, NORTH SYDNEY DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO. 404/15 Page 2 of 29

September 2013 v1

Undercroft Landscape Detail AA2. A landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Landscape

Architect detailing the treatment of the undercroft area located underneath the eastern addition, must be submitted to Council for the written approval of Council’s Landscape Development Officer.

The landscape plan must allow for a rocky outcrop treatment similar to the examples

provided within the Heritage Assessment Report dated 22 April 2016, prepared by City Plan Heritage and submitted to Council on 22 April 2016.



Additional Heritage documentation AA3. The following additional heritage documentation must be submitted:-

a) The submitted Schedule of Conservation Works prepared by Robert Moore is to be amended to include heritage specifications for carrying out works in accordance with traditional methods and for each trade such as stone mason, demolisher, bricklayer, plasterer etc.

b) Details of the proposed external paint scheme are to be submitted to Council for the written approval of Council’s Team Leader Assessment in consultation with the Consultant Heritage Planner, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used. This should include an updated material sample board.

c) Details of the reconstruction of the eastern verandah should be provided indicating all required works and large scale details where appropriate.


the characteristics of the heritage item and the conservation area) Upon satisfaction of the deferred commencement condition/s, the following conditions apply: A. Conditions that Identify Approved Plans Development in Accordance with Plans/documentation A1. The development must be carried out in accordance with the drawings and

documentation and endorsed with Council’s approval stamp, except where amended by the following conditions and this consent.



September 2013 v1

Plan No. Issue Title Drawn by Received

Architectural Plans DA04 A Site Analysis Plan A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA05 A Proposed Ground Floor Plan A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA06 A New Lower Ground Floor

Plan A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016

DA07 A South Elevation A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA08 A North Elevation A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA09 A East Elevation A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA10 - West Elevation A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016 DA11 A Section A Chandrahasan Architect 7 April 2016

Landscape Plans L/01 E Proposed Landscape Plan ATC (a total concept) 1 April 2016 L/02 - Landscape Details ATC (a total concept) 1 April 2016 L/03 - Landscape Specifications ATC (a total concept) 1 April 2016

Note: The final drawing numbers and associated details are subject to further

updates to reflect the changes required by the relevant deferred commencement conditions.

(Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in

accordance with the determination of Council, Public Information) Plans on Site A2. A copy of all stamped approved plans, specifications and documents (including the

plans, specifications and documents submitted and approved with the Construction Certificate) must be kept on site at all times so as to be readily available for perusal by any officer of Council or the Principal Certifying Authority. All documents kept on site in accordance with this condition must be provided to any officer of the Council or the certifying authority upon their request.

(Reason: To ensure that the form of the development undertaken is in

accordance with the determination of Council, Public Information and to ensure ongoing compliance)

No Demolition of Extra Fabric A3. Alterations to, and demolition of the existing building shall be limited to that

documented on the approved plans.

(Reason: To ensure compliance with the approved development) C. Prior to the Issue of a Construction Certificate (and ongoing, where indicated). Amendments to the Landscape Plan C1. The following amendments to the Landscape Plan are to be provided by a suitably

qualified and experienced Landscape Architect :-

a) 1 x replenishment tree at 45 L pot size (minimum) must be provided within the garden to the west of the dwelling. It must have a mature height greater than 5 m.



September 2013 v1

b) Paved areas are to be reduced to minimum requirements for parking for two vehicles as the driveway is unnecessarily long. Detail of paver design for the driveway and dimensions of paved areas to be provided.

c) Screening hedge plants must be provided along the boundary of 42-48 Whaling Rd. Nominated screen plant specimens must be 15L pot size (minimum).

d) The non-trafficable area of the roof garden needs to include low maintenance landscape treatment. Details are to be provided on the landscape plan.

e) A detail section of the roof garden is to show the soil depth and drainage. f) Show the detail design of the garden to the east of the roof garden indicating

tall shrub species at 45 L pot size that grow to 3 m height (minimum) to screen the open voids, climbing plants at 5L pot size, in addition to the rockery and the understorey plants.

g) Detail of the vehicular gate to be provided to property boundary to The Avenue. It is to have a maximum height of 1m and have either a timber picket or steel palisade construction.

h) Detail of roof garden balustrade is to be provided. It is to be steel palisade and not glazed.

An amended landscape plan complying with this condition must be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Landscape Development Officer for the written approval prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate. The Certifying Authority must ensure that the amended landscape plan and other plans and specifications submitted fully satisfy the requirements of this condition. (Reason: To ensure a desirable landscaping outcome and to protect residential

amenity) Dilapidation Report Private Property (Excavation) C2. A full dilapidation survey and report on the visible and structural condition of all

neighbouring structures within the ‘zone of influence’ of the required excavations must be submitted to the Certifying Authority for approval prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate. The zone of influence is to be defined as the horizontal distance from the edge of the excavation face to twice the excavation depth.

The dilapidation report and survey is to be prepared by a consulting structural/geotechnical engineer agreed to by both the applicant and the owner of any affected adjoining property.

All costs incurred in achieving compliance with this condition shall be borne by the person entitled to act on this Consent.

In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied by an adjoining owner, the applicant MUST DEMONSTRATE, in writing, to the satisfaction of Council that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise the affected property owner of the reason for the survey and that these steps have failed. Written concurrence must be obtained from Council in such circumstances.



September 2013 v1

Note: This documentation is for record keeping purposes only, and may be used by the developer or affected property owner to assist in any action required to resolve any dispute over damage to adjoining properties arising from the works. It is in the applicant’s and adjoining owner’s interest for it to be as full and detailed as possible.

(Reason: To record the condition of property/ies prior to the commencement of

construction) Dilapidation Survey Private Property (Neighbouring Buildings) C3. A photographic survey and dilapidation report of adjoining properties No 16 The

Avenue, North Sydney detailing the physical condition of those properties, both internally and externally, including, but not limited to, such items as walls, ceilings, roof, structural members and other similar items, SHALL BE submitted to the C

item - reports · 2016. 4. 28. · 4 february 2016 a site visit was conducted by the consultant...

Documents