ordinary meeting no. 4252 - hunter's hill council · 4252 – 28 july 2008 index a –...

Ordinary Meeting No. 4252 28 July 2008 at 7.30pm

Hunter ’s H i l l C ounc i l

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Prayer Attendance, Apologies, Declarations of Interests A Confirmation of Minutes Civic Ceremonies B Mayoral Minutes & Reports Tabling of Petitions Addresses from the Public C Notice of Motions

(including Rescission Motions) Reports from Staff D Development & Environment E Public Works & Infrastructure F Finance & Administration G Customer & Community Services H General Manager J Committees K Correspondence L Delegates Reports M General Business N Questions With or Without Notice Z Council in Committee of the Whole

HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

4252 – 28 July 2008

INDEX A – CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4250 held 23 June 2008 ............... 1 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting 4251 held 21 July 2008 ......... 1

B – MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS

1. Annual Performance Review – General Manager Barry Smith .............................. 1

D – DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

1. 12 William Street, Henley .......................................................................................... 1 2. 10 Euthella Avenue, Hunters Hill ............................................................................ 15 3. 12/10 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill ................................................................................ 29 4. Salter St, Huntleys Cove - Draft Amendment 53 to Hunters Hill LEP No.1 ......... 40 5. 3-7 Cowell Street, Gladesville ................................................................................. 44 6. 39 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill ............................................................................... 56 7. 8A Joubert Street, Hunters Hill ................................................................................ 66 8. 9 Gaza Avenue, Hunters Hill ................................................................................... 95 9. 95 Park Road, Hunters Hill ....................................................................................103 10. 12 & 10A The Point Road, Hunters Hill ................................................................112 11. 29 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill ...........................................................................130 12. Legal Report ...........................................................................................................146 13. Delegated Authority ................................................................................................147

E – PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Hunters Hill Memorial Policy ..................................................................................... 1 2. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals/Refusals ...................................................... 2 3. Importation of Savannah Cats into Australia ......................................................... 12

F – FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

1. Summary of Council’s Investments for June 2008 ................................................. 1

G – CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

1. The Priory Conservation Management Plan ........................................................... 1

H – GENERAL MANAGER

1. Henley Club ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Councillor Fees 2008/09 ............................................................................................ 3 3. Constitutional Recognition for Local Government ................................................... 7 4. Revised Model Code of Conduct ............................................................................ 10 5. Monthly Report on Outstanding Matters ................................................................. 14

-2-

J – COMMITTEES

1. Minutes of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held 17 June 2008....................................................................................................... 1 2. Minutes of the Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee Meeting held 18 June 2008....................................................................................................... 5 3. Minutes of the Joint Library Service Advisory Committee Meeting held 25 June

2008 ............................................................................................................................. 9 4. Minutes of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 July 2008 ...................................................................................................... 12 5. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel Meeting held 18 June 2008 .......... 16 6. Minutes of the Hunter’s Hill Council Event Committee Meeting held

17 June 2008 ............................................................................................................ 22

K – CORRESPONDENCE

1. Items 1-3 of Correspondence .................................................................................... 1

M – GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council ............................................................. 1

A

Confirmation Of Minutes

A – Confirmation Of Minutes

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting 4250 held 23 June 2008 1 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Extraordinary Meeting 4251 held 21 July 2008 1

..................................................... ......................................... Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF ORDINARY MEETING NO.4250 – 23 June 2008 A1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4250 held on 23 June 2008. This is page

COMMENCEMENT The meeting opened with Prayer at 7:35pm. IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Councillor Simon Frame, Councillors Peter Astridge, Annabel Croll, Jason Lin, Richard Quinn and Ross Sheerin. ALSO PRESENT The General Manager Barry Smith, the Manager Public Works and Infrastructure David Innes, the Manager Finance and Administration Debra McFadyen, the Manager Development and Environment Steve Kourepis and Trainee Administration Officer Jessica Quilty. APOLOGIES No apologies were received. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 211/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the Minutes of

Ordinary Meeting No.4249 held 10 June 2008 be confirmed. REPORTS FROM STAFF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D84) 1. DA NO.07/1048 – 1 JAMES STREET, HUNTERS HILL 212/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Frame that:

A. Council as the consent authority being satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the garden area provisions under Clause 16A of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded.

B. Development Application No.07/1048 (S82A Review) for a first floor

addition to the existing dwelling at No.1 James Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions.

Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within two (2) years after the date of approval.



2. The development consent No.07/1048 relates to the plans prepared by Thorsette Pty Ltd, numbered 0617-1B, 0617-2B, 0617-3B, all issue B, dated 17 April 2008, 0617-4A, issue A, dated 20 March 2008.

3. That a privacy screen be installed to the northern side of the proposed balcony with a maximum height of 1600mm. Amended plans to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. The Pencil Pines proposed for the eastern boundary are slow growing and

would not provide effective screening. It is recommended that Syzygium australe pinnacle ‘narrow leaf’ be planted instead. Amended plans to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions:

A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C15, C35, C40, C41, C44, D2, D13-D18, FS2, L2, L4, PE4.

2. DA NO.08/1014 – 12 WILLIAM STREET, HENLEY PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Ms Jan Waters (Objector) and Mr. Chris Kokkinis (Architect) addressed the meeting

on the subject matter. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 213/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Croll that at 7:45pm, Standing

Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 214/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Lin, seconded Clr Croll that at 7:49pm, Standing

Orders be resumed. 215/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection. Clr Quinn FORESHADOWED a motion that the application be approved as per the

recommendation to Council:

A. Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height standard of clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. Development application No. DA2008/1014 for alterations and additions to

the existing dwelling house including rainwater tanks at No.12 William Street, Henley, be approved subject to the following conditions.



Special Conditions:

1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by Ergo Architecture and Interiors drawing Nos.07RUG1 02 to 11 dated February 2008, as received by Council on 14 February 2008 and landscape plan prepared by Kwak and Associates drawing No.DA-L101 revision C dated 4 February 2008, as received by Council on 14 February 2008, except where amended by the conditions of this consent.

2. The external materials and colours to be used in the development being in

accordance with the sample board prepared by Ergo Architecture & Interiors as received by Council on 14 February 2008.

3. The timber battens to be installed as privacy screens to the edge of the

balconies of the family room on the ground floor to be constructed in such a way as to maximise the privacy of the adjoining residents. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. The development being carried out in accordance with the Basix Certificate

as submitted on 14 February 2008 with the application.

5. The three (3) Camellias, incorrectly labelled as Figs, located on the southern boundary of the site being retained and protected during building works. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

6. The proposed front fence and gates not exceeding 1.2 metres above footway

level at any point. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. The swimming pool fencing being replaced with metal palisade type safety

fencing. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

8. The glass balustrade to the ground and first floor levels on the northern

elevation being replaced with metal palisade type balustrading complying with the provisions of the BCA. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard conditions:

A1, A4–A9, B1, B7 ($2,870), C1–C5, C19, C31–C34, C40, C44, C45, S1, SP2–SP10, W1.

The FORSHADOWED motion on being put to the meeting was LOST. 3. DA NO.08/1019 – 7 NORTH PARADE, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Andrew Martin (Planner) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 216/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Quinn that:



A. Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height controls of clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded and consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. Development Application No. 2008/1019 for the construction of a new two-

storey and basement dwelling with swimming pool and front fence at No.7 North Parade, Hunters Hill, be approved , subject to the following conditions.

Special Conditions:

1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by

Aleksandar Design Group, drawing numbers DA01 issue A dated February 2008 as received by Council on 27 February 2008, DA02 to DA06 issue B dated April 2008 as received by Council on 18 April 2008 and landscape plan prepared by Melissa Wilson, drawing number LS01 issue B dated 3 March 2008 as received by Council on 5 March 2008, except where amended by conditions of this approval.

2. Stormwater disposal and storage to be provided generally as indicated on

DA.03. Prior to issue of Construction Certificate a detail stormwater plan being submitted to the P.C.A. for approval, with reference to Council’s D.C.P No.25.

3. Kerb and gutter being constructed within the road widening close to the new location of boundary walls.

4. A Survey Plan providing for the 1.0 metre road widening of North Parade to be dedicated at no cost to Council being lodged with the Land Titles Office for registration prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate and such documentation being submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority. Each party is to share its own costs and the existing sandstone fence (retaining wall) is to be reconstructed at the applicants cost.

5. A rainwater tank of minimum capacity 5,000 litres being installed on the premises.

6. Dilapidation reports being prepared and certified by a practising structural

engineer on the current state of the existing adjoining cottages fronting D’Aram Street. Such reports shall be completed and submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any excavation or construction work. Upon completion of the approved building works, second dilapidation reports are to be carried out on the buildings. The applicant is to pay for the cost of the above-mentioned reports.

7. So as to preserve the amenity of the North Parade streetscape, the existing

sandstone retaining wall (with the exception of the pedestrian and vehicular openings) is to be reconstructed in a position 1 metre south of its present position.

8. The sandstone from the openings in the front retaining wall being salvaged

and utilised in the lining of the returns to the vehicular entrance excavation.



9. The finishes and colours shall be utilised for the development in accordance with the A4 3D Image and Finishes Schedule as prepared by Aleksandar Design Group Pty Ltd drawing No.DA08 issue A as received by Council on 27 February 2008.

10. Excavation on the subject site shall be limited to the area and volume is to

be amended and, as referred to in schedule 1 condition No.1, referred to as above.

11. The rainwater tank not being connected to the mains water for ‘topping up’

purposes. 12. For the purpose of residential amenity, any motor pump that may be used

with the rainwater tank, swimming pool and air-conditioning being housed in a sound attenuating enclosure such that the noise emanating from such equipment is not in excess of the ambient background sound level at the site boundaries at any time.

13. The provision of a privacy screen on or near the southern side of the rear

balconies and external stairs.

14. Substitute the planting of Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) with a species not featured on Council’s Weed Register. Species including Pittosporum rhombifolium (Orange Berried Pittosporum) and Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) are considered suitable alternatives.

15. Provide for two (2) additional trees as canopy species capable of reaching

a minimum mature height of 12 metres such as Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo).

16. Provide additional screen planting along the southern boundary capable of

reaching a maturity height of 2.5 metres.


A1, A4–A9, B1, B7 ($6,895), C1–C5, C12, C19, C31–C35, C41, C42, C44, C45, D1, S1, SD1, SD2, SD29, SP2–SP10, SP12, SP14, SP16–SP19, W1.

4. DA NO.07/1193 – 10 EUTHELLA AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Henry Swain, (Objector) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 217/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Croll that at 8:12pm,

Standing Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 218/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Croll that at 8:15pm, Standing

Orders be resumed.



219/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the matter be deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection.

5. DA NO.07/1144 – 9 GLADSTONE AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Dr. Peter Snowdon (Objector) addressed the meeting on the subject matter. SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS 220/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Frame that at 8:23pm, Standing

Orders be suspended to allow Councillors to view plans. RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS 221/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Lin that at 8:26pm, Standing

Orders be resumed. 222/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Frame that Development

Application No.2007/1144 for the demolition of the existing dwelling, free standing laundry, spa and carport and construction of a new two (2) storey dwelling at No.9 Gladstone Avenue, Hunters Hill be approved, subject to the following conditions.

Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within two (2) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.07/1144 relates to the plans prepared by Project Control Group Pty Ltd, numbered, DA-01, issue C, DA-02, issue D, DA-03, issue D, DA-04, issue C, DA-05, issue C, DA-06, issue D, DA07, issue C, DA-08, issue C, DA-09, issue C, DA-12, issue D, DA-15, issue B, dated 8 April 2008. Landscape Plan prepared by Conzept Landscape Architects, drawing No.LPDA08 – 45/1c and LPDA 08 – 45/2C, dated August 2007. Schedule of colours and materials prepared by Project Control Group Pty Ltd, No. DA-13-B, dated 26 November 2007.

3. The garage door should be a simpler, non-panelled design in a colour to match that proposed for the external walls (finished in a dark and recessive colour/tone). Details to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. The Landscape Plan should be amended to accurately reflect the

recommendation outlined in the Arborist Report. Tree # 14 Acer palmatum (Japanese Maple) should be shown for removal and tree # 17 for protection and retention. Amended Landscape Plan to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

5. Implement the tree protection recommendations specific to tree # 17

outlined in the Tree Management Plan prepared as part of the Arborist Report.



6. The three (3) Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese Tree) should be supplied as 200 litre specimens not 75 litre specimens as detailed on the Landscape Plan. Amended Landscape Plan to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. Tree protection measures should be provided for all other trees detailed for

retention on the Landscape Plan. This includes tree # 5 Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) located on Council land. The tree protection measures shall be prepared by an arborist with a minimum qualification (using the Australian Qualifications Framework) of NSW Level 4 or above in Arboriculture.

The tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any demolition, excavation or construction works commencing on-site. The arborist shall also inspect the site at regular intervals throughout the development period to ensure the specifications are maintained. A site log shall record the details of these inspections. Details to be provided prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

8. The colour scheme of the front fence is to match the proposed dwelling.

Details to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

9. With regard to areas drained to Council’s gutter by gravity pipelines as indicated in C-01, a re-designed discharge system is recommended with the following elements, prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

• Site Discharge Pit (S.D.P.) in north west corner. • Discharge to street gutter invert adjacent to Northwest corner. • Fall from rear pits to be minimum 1 in 100 to S.D.P. • Delete boundary trench grate at driveway. Allow driveway to drain

across footpath to gutter. • Water tank overflow to be piped to S.D.P. at 1:100 or better.

Reason: In general the system submitted is unnecessarily complex and has poor gradients.

Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction

Certificate.

10. Prior to excavation BEYOND THE BOUNDARY for any reason, road opening and restoration fees and charges being paid.

Council to be consulted prior to alterations to driveway, trimming of trees, or public footpath excavation.

11. All heavy vehicle movements during demolition, excavation and construction to be via GLADSTONE AVENUE ONLY to Woolwich Road.

12. That the open timber pergolas along the northern and eastern elevations are not to be roofed at any time, so that the site continues to comply with the minimum 50% requirement of Clause 16A of LEP No.1.



Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B7, C1-C5, C8-C10, C12, C14, C19, C40-C42, C44, D1-D8, D13, D16-D19, FS2, L2, L4, PE4-PE8, S1, S7(50%).

6. HUNTERS HILL URBAN DESIGN STRATEGY 223/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheerin that the public domain

design manual be placed on exhibition for public comment for a period of 28 days. 7. NSW HOUSING CODES & COMMERCIAL BUILDING CODES 224/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Sheerin that:

1. A submission be made to the Department of Planning for consideration by

the Complying Development Expert Panel seeking a variation providing for the NSW Housing Code to not apply to the Municipality of Hunters Hill, given the particular characteristics of the area and the difficulties that present in applying the Codes.

2. A submission be made to the Minister for Planning urging that the Codes

apply to Conservation Areas on a permanent basis, not on a interim basis.

8. LEGAL MATTERS 225/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted.

9. DELEGATED AUTHORITY 226/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Lin that the report be received

and noted.

PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE (Pages E1 – E2) 1. THE POINT ROAD, WOOLWICH PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF Mr. Phil Haldeman addressed the meeting on the subject matter. 227/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that:

1. Council receive and note the petition from residents of Gale Street and The Point Road regarding the undergrounding of overhead wiring in their streets.

2. Council advise the petitioners of Council’s support for the proposal, but that

no capital funding is available for the project.

3. Council further advise the petitioners that Council is prepared to act as part of the resident team, negotiating with Energy Australia for the proposal.

4. Councillors be invited to attend the next meeting with Energy Australia.

5. Council ascertain the costs of designing a solution for underground cabling.



FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION (Pages F1 – F2) 1. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL’S INVESTMENTS FOR MAY 2008 228/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Frame, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES (Pages G1) 1. COMMUNITY FACILITY BORONIA PARK RESERVE 229/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that the report be

received and noted. The Deputy Mayor Councillor Simon Frame here left the meeting at 9.25pm.

GENERAL MANAGER (Pages H1 – H24)

1. 2008/09 - 2017/18 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, FORWARD FINANCIAL PLAN & BUDGET

230/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Croll that:

1. The 2008/09 – 2017/18 Strategic Management Plan, Forward Financial Plan and Budget be adopted.

2. The following rates and charges apply for the 2008/09 financial year:

(A) Residential Rate

1. Ordinary Rate Ad valorem rate including: Rate pegging allowable increase 2. Local Loan Rates Base Rate plus Ad valorem rate including: Rate pegging allowable increase 3. Special Environmental Rate Base Rate plus Ad valorem rate including: Rate pegging allowable increase

4. Special Rate Community Facilities & Asset Infrastructure Base Rate plus Ad valorem rate including:

Rate pegging allowable increase

Rate 2008/09 General Rate Ad valorem Rate 0.00157217 Minimum Rate 405.00 Local Loan Rate No. 1 Base Rate 24.54 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00004498 Local Loan Rate No. 2 Base Rate 17.90 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00003441



Rate 2008/09 Environmental Rate Base Rate 12.79 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00002380 CFAI Rate Base Rate 20.64 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00004487

(B) Business Rate

1. Ordinary Rate

Base Rate plus Ad valorem rate including: Rate pegging allowable increase

2. Local Loan Rates

Rate plus Ad valorem rate including: Rate pegging allowable increase

3. Special Environmental Rate


4. Special Rate Community Facilities & Asset Infrastructure


Rate 2008/2009

General Rate Base Rate 49.07 Ad valorem Rate 0.00156595 Local Loan Rate No. 1 Base Rate 24.54 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00004498 Local Loan Rate No. 2 Base Rate 17.90 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00003441 Environmental Rate Base Rate 12.79 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00002380 CFAI Special Rate Base Rate 20.64 Plus Ad valorem Rate 0.00004487

(C) Domestic and Business Waste Charges

Service Type 2008/2009

Residential Waste Charges (s496) Domestic Waste 80L 214.78 Domestic Waste 120L 287.88 Domestic Waste 240L 382.83 Availability Charge 21.53 Combo - 120L & 240L Dom Waste 670.72 Extra Recycling Service (Blue) (120L or 240L) 92.03 Extra Recycling Service (Yellow) 120L or 240L) 92.03



Service Type 2008/2009 Residential Waste Charges (s496) GREEN WASTE CHARGES (S496) Extra Green Waste Service (240L) 119.60 MULTI-UNIT WASTE CHARGES (495) Shared Service (2 units) 120L 167.94 Shared Service (2 units) 240L 205.67 Shared Service (3 units) 240L 159.60 Business Waste Charges (S501 (1)) Waste Charge 120L (incl SBS) 492.76 Waste Charge 240L (incl SBS) 587.80 Additional 120L Bus Waste Charge 239.90 Additional 240L Bus Waste Charge 334.85 Business Waste Charge (Street Bin Service only) 252.96

(D) Fees and Charges for 2008/09 to apply as per Part D – Schedule of

Fees & Charges. 3. Interest on overdue rates is to be charged at 10%

2. 1. PERMIT PARKING SCHEMES POLICY

2. WOOLWICH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT & PARKING 231/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Quinn that:

1. The Permit Parking Schemes Policy be adopted in principle subject to further review in conjunction with the review of the Woolwich Parking scheme.

2. The report on Woolwich Traffic Management and Parking be received and the changes in timelines noted.

3. The report be referred to the next meeting of the Woolwich Village Working Party for information.

3. COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT POLICY 232/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Quinn that the Compliance

and Enforcement Policy be adopted for the purpose of public exhibition and comment.

COMMITTEE REPORTS (Pages J1 – J13) 1. GENERAL PURPOSE COMMITTEE INSPECTIONS HELD 10 JUNE 2008 233/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Lin that the report be received

and noted.



2. MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD 21 MAY 2008

234/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Croll that the minutes be

received and noted. 3. MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL SENIOR SUPPORT GROUP MEETING HELD

16 JUNE 2008 235/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheerin that the minutes be

received and noted. 4. MINUTES OF THE ART & CRAFT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD

12 JUNE 2008 236/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Sheerin, seconded Clr Astridge that the minutes be

received and noted. 5. MINUTES OF THE FINANCIAL AND STRATEGIC PLANNING ADVISORY

COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 12 JUNE 2008 237/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that the minutes be

received and noted. CORRESPONDENCE (Pages K1) 1. CORRESPONDENCE 238/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Lin that the correspondence be

received and noted. GENERAL BUSINESS (Page M1) 1. MEETINGS – VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL 239/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Croll, seconded Clr Quinn that the report listing the

various Committees of Council be received and noted. QUESTIONS WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE

No. Author Date Question Answer

37/08 Clr Lin 23.6.08 Overgrown trees adjacent to 46 Sherwin Street, Henley are of concern during windy weather. Could a site inspection be arranged?

Council Parks & Landscape co-ordinator meet with the owner of 46 Sherwin Street on the 17th of July. He explained to the owner his rights to prune overhanging branches to the property alignment. He also advised that the risk of fire is negligible, and that he could contact him in the future if he had any more queries.



TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 9:55pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Ordinary Meeting No.4250 held 23 June 2008. ............................................. ................................... Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY MEETING NO.4251 – 21 JULY 2008 A1

Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting No. 4251 held 21 July on 2008 This is page

COMMENCEMENT The meeting opened with Prayer at 7.40pm. IN ATTENDANCE The Mayor Councillor Susan Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Councillor Simon Frame, Councillors Peter Astridge, Annabel Croll, Jason Lin, Richard Quinn and Ross Sheerin. ALSO PRESENT The General Manager Barry Smith, the Manager Public Works and Infrastructure David Innes, the Manager Development and Environment Steve Kourepis, Strategic Planner Bruce McDonald and Administration Officer Jessica Quilty. APOLOGIES No apologies were received. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Mayor called for Declarations of Interest without response. MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS (Pages B1 – B2) 1. LE VÉSINET FRIENDSHIP PACT 20TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION 240/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Croll that:

1. The greetings of Council be conveyed to M. Robert Vârese, Mayor of Le Vésinet in recognition of 20 years of close and international friendship between our two municipalities.

2. The Sister City Committees of Le Vésinet, Outrémont and Worster be thanked for their generous gifts on the occasion of the 20th Anniversary Celebration.

3. Mrs Janet Williams and the members of Le Vésinet Friendship Committee be congratulated and thanked for their work which provided the formation of strong friendships and many happy memories for the Australian and French exchange students over the past 20 years.

4. Mrs Judith Burgess be advised of the sincere appreciation of Council for her valuable gift of time and two quilts.

5. The assistance of Council staff be acknowledged in the Minutes.

MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY MEETING NO.4251 – 21 JULY 2008 A2

Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting No. 4251 held 21 July on 2008 This is page

REPORTS FROM STAFF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT (Pages D1 – D24) 1. HUNTERS HILL DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN & DRAFT

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (STAGE 1) PROCEEDINGS IN BRIEF A Motion was moved, Clr Croll, Seconded Clr Frame that Mr. Steve Kourepis

provide an overview of the LEP/DCP proposal. 241/08 The Motion on being put to the meeting was CARRIED.

The following addressed Council on the subject matter

Mr. David Furlong For Hunters Hill Hotel Mr. Tony Coote For Hunters Hill Trust Mr. Chris Hartley 24 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill Ms Meredith Bayfield 22 Avenue Road, HUNTERS HILL 2110 Mr. Grahame Anschal 20 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill Mr. John Krom 4 Avenue Road, Hunters Hill Mr. Peter Blanch 9 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill

242/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Quinn, seconded Clr Sheerin that the Draft Local

Environmental Plan Hunters Hill Village (Stage 1- Hunters Hill Village) and the Draft Development Control Plan for the Hunters Hill Village be deferred for further analysis concerning a possible variation of the proposed 10.5m height control being reduced to 10m and the incentive provision for a three lot amalgamation being deleted, within the Ryde Road precinct of the draft LEP/DCP.

TERMINATION The meeting terminated at 10:00pm. I confirm that these Minutes are a true and accurate record of Extraordinary Meeting No.4251 held 21 July, 2008 ..................................................... ......................................... Councillor Susan R. Hoopmann Barry Smith MAYOR GENERAL MANAGER

B

Mayoral Minutes & Reports

B – Mayoral Minutes & Reports

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Annual Performance Review – General Manager Barry Smith 1 .................................................

Councillor Susan Hoopmann MAYOR

MAYORAL MINUTES & REPORTS Meeting 4252 – 28 July, 2008 B1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No.4252 held 28 July, 2008. This is page

ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW – GENERAL MANAGER BARRY SMITH

BUSINESS PROGRAM : MANAGEMENT & COUNCIL SUPPORT

REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR SUSAN HOOPMANN

FILE : 702/03

In accordance with the requirements of the Contract of Employment for the General Manager Mr. Barry Smith, it is proposed that a Performance Review will be undertaken prior to completion of his second year of service of the current contract. The Department of Local Government, Local Government and Shires Association and Local Government Managers Australia, developed and agreed in 2007 on a set of ‘Performance Guidelines’ to assist Councils in undertaking performance reviews. The sections of the guidelines relevant to the review process are: Establishing the framework for performance management Council/GM Performance Review Panel Whilst the Council can undertake the performance management of its General Manager, it is recommended that it delegate this task to a General Manager Performance Review Panel. A Panel provides a better forum for constructive discussion and feedback. It should comprise the Mayor, optionally the Deputy Mayor and one Councillor nominated by the Council. The General Manager should have the option of nominating another Councillor to the Panel. It is good practice to enable Councillors not on the Panel to provide feedback to the Mayor in the week prior to each session. All Councillors should be notified of the relevant dates of the sessions to assist with this process. Those councillors selected to take part on the Panel should have received training on the performance management of General Managers. Training in the performance management of General Managers should be part of councils’ induction programs for councillors following each election. If the decision is made to delegate to a Panel, the extent of that delegation should be clear. It is recommended that the whole process of performance management be delegated to the Panel, including decisions about performance, any actions that should be taken, and the determination of the new performance agreement. The result should be reported to a closed meeting of Council or a Committee of Council. This should not be an opportunity to debate the results, or re-enact the performance management of the General Manager. External Facilitator The Council and the General Manager may agree on the involvement of an external facilitator, experienced in performance management, to assist with the development of the performance plan and the process of performance appraisal (paragraph 7.8 of the Standard Contract of employment). An external facilitator is helpful in ensuring objectivity and fairness in the performance management process. This person can help the Council in identifying what Council’s expectations of the General Manager are. The external facilitator should be a skilled facilitator with a good understanding of the functions of local government and the role and responsibilities of the General Manager. 7.8 The structure and process of the performance review is at the discretion of Council

following consultation with the employee.



Models of Performance Agreements Some of the models for performance agreements currently used by Councils and General Managers are also provided in the guidelines. The model used by Council for the past ten years, is the Process and Outcome Model and this has proven to be very satisfactory. (i) Process and Outcome model

This model divides the agreement into two parts:

Part One relates to process objectives, or the General Manager’s position objectives and responsibilities as per the Contract Part Two relates to strategic objectives, or key outcomes from Council’s Management Plan The measures in this model are both quantitative and qualitative. The scoring method used is a rating system from A to D (or 5.0 to 0.0), where A (5.0) is excellent and D (0.0 – 0.9) is unsatisfactory.

Training of Councillors in Performance Management Councillors have participated in the past three annual reviews and should the same performance agreement be maintained then no additional training should be required. As recommended in the ‘Performance Guidelines’ it is suggested that Council form a review panel for the purpose of undertaking the annual performance review. The Review will be conducted in consultation with Mr. Smith and thereafter, a written statement in terms of Clause 7.10 of his contract will be provided. In accordance with the conditions of the Contract, Council will prepare and send to the employee, within 6 weeks from the conclusion of a performance review, a written statement that sets out: (a) Conclusions about the employee’s performance during the performance review

period, (b) Any proposal by Council to vary the performance criteria as a consequence of a

performance review, and (c) Any directions or recommendations made by Council to the employee in relation to

the employee’s future performance of the duties of the position. In order that this process may be commenced, it is necessary for the General Manager to supply the Panel with a copy of his self-assessment. As suggested in the Performance Guidelines it is proposed that the self-assessment is provided to all Councillors for completion and comment, after which, the Panel will coordinate all responses and draft its assessment.



FINANCIAL IMPACT The contract provides for variations in the total remuneration package as follows: 8.1 Council may, on only one occasion during each year of this contract, approve an

increase in the total remuneration package where the employee’s performance has been assessed in accordance with a performance review as part of a better than satisfactory standard.

8.2 Any increase in remuneration approved under subclause 8.3 will not be paid as a

lump sum. 8.3 On each anniversary of the commencement date, the total remuneration package

will be increased by a percentage amount that is equivalent to the latest percentage amount increase in remuneration for senior executive office holders by the Statutory and Other Officers Remuneration Tribunal.

RECOMMENDATION 1. The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and one other Councillor form the Review Panel. 2. The General Manager nominate one other Councillor to the Review Panel should

he wish to do so.

3. The review panel be given delegated authority to: (a) Undertake and complete the review process. (b) Determine any review of the remuneration package in accordance with

section 8.1 of the Contract. 4. The Review be conducted in consultation with Mr. Smith and thereafter, a written

statement in terms of Clause 7.10 of the Contract be provided to the General Manager.

D

Development & Environment

D – Development & Environment

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. 12 William Street, Henley 1 2. 10 Euthella Avenue, Hunters Hill 15 3. 12/10 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill 29 4. Salter St, Huntleys Cove - Draft Amendment 53 to Hunters Hill LEP No.1 40 5. 3-7 Cowell Street, Gladesville 44 6. 39 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill 56 7. 8A Joubert Street, Hunters Hill 66 8. 9 Gaza Avenue, Hunters Hill 95 9. 95 Park Road, Hunters Hill 103 10. 12 & 10A The Point Road, Hunters Hill 112 11. 29 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill 130 12. Legal Report 146 13. Delegated Authority 147 .........................................

Steve Kourepis MANAGER

DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D1

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting No. 4252 held on 28 July 2008. This is page

ITEM NO : 1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 08/1014 PROPOSAL : ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO EXISTING

DWELLING & GARAGE PLUS FRONT FENCE PROPERTY : 12 WILLIAM STREET, HENLEY APPLICANT : ERGO ARCHITECTURE & INTERIORS OWNER : MR. N. & MRS J RUGOLI DATE LODGED : 14 FEBRUARY 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1745/12 & DA08/1014 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

Council considered the report for the application for 12 William Street, Henley at the Council meeting of 23 June 2008 where it was resolved as follows: 215/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection. The site inspection is to take place on 28 July 2008 at 5.00pm.

The proposal relies on a SEPP No.1 objection in relation to the development standard of height. One objection was received as a result of public exhibition of the application.

Issues

• Loss of privacy.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval for reasons that:

1. It is permissible under the zoning;

2. It complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15;

3. It will not have adverse effects on the amenity of the residents of adjoining premises.




2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

It is proposed to carry out the following works to the existing dwelling and garage: • Alterations to the street elevation including new pergolas with louvers at first floor

level, an altered entry portico, new garage doors and new front fence • Renovate the existing bathrooms on the first floor level • Construct new pergolas over existing balconies to bedrooms 1, 2 & 4 • Provide new copper cladding to the existing roof • Relocate the kitchen on ground floor level • Alter the shape of the existing balcony to the ground floor lounge room at the rear of

the dwelling • Modify the external stairs and side access along the southern boundary • Provide minor internal changes to the layout at lower ground floor level • Carry out external works including the cladding with sandstone of external walls • Provide new masonry columns under the existing balconies • Erection of new glass pool fencing and the wet edge treatment to the existing

swimming • Provide new landscaping to the front of the site • Provide new sandstone clad masonry front fence of piers and plinth with timber

batten infills ranging in height from 1.5 metres to 1.8 metres.

The application was accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects, an SEPP No.1 objection and a Basix Certificate.

3. SITE & THE ENVIRONS

The site is known as No.12 William Street, Henley, and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 127638 and Lot 5 Section 1 in DP 810. The subject site is situated on the north-eastern side between Bayview Crescent and Parramatta River.

The site is roughly rectangular shaped with a frontage of 24.385 metres to William Street and an area of 1,182.5sqm. It has frontage to the Parramatta River. The site slopes approximately 13 metres from the street down to the river.

Currently standing on the subject site is a part two-storey and part three-storey dwelling with a large undercroft area and an attached double garage at ground floor level facing the street. Also on the site are a swimming pool, weatherboard shed and boat ramp.

Adjoining to the north is a two-storey rendered and tiled roofed dwelling and to the south is a part single-storey and part two-storey rendered and metal roofed dwelling with a garage to the front. Opposite over William Street are single-storey and two-storey brick / tile dwelling houses.

The site is not located within a Conservation Area. The building is not a heritage or a contributory item and it does not adjoin a contributory item.

4. PROPERTY HISTORY

Development consent was granted by Council under its delegation on 12 January 2000 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new two-storey and basement dwelling with a pool and retaining walls. That development provided for a height of 8.0 metres, which complied with the development standard at that time and did not require an SEPP No.1 objection to be lodged.




5. STATUTORY CONTROLS

5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 LEP No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP of Sydney Harbour Yes Development Control Plan: DCP No. 15 - Residential Development Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health and Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage The subject site is not a heritage item nor a contributory item and is not within a Conservation Area. There are no heritage items adjoining or nearby the subject site. . 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The proposal was referred Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation. 7.5 Landscaping / Trees Officer The proposal was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who raised no objection to the plan submitted subject to a condition No. 5 as set out in the recommendation. 8. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL ASSESSMENT:

8.1 Compliance table for DCP No.1 CONTROL REQUIRED/

PERMISSIBLE PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

Building height 7.2metres 8.0 metres as existing

No-see SEPP No.1 objection

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 60% 61% as

existing Yes




CONTROL REQUIRED/ PERMISSIBLE

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house Front Rear South-east (Side) North-west (Side)

Predom. street pattern 6.0 metres 1.5metres 1.5metres

8.5m/11.0m 30 metres 1.65 metres 2.0 metres

Yes Yes Yes Yes

See reference below to the SEPP No.1 objection. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 lists matters the Council shall take into consideration when determining an application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the matters as detailed below. 9.1 S.79C(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any e nvironmental planning instrument:

State Planning Policy No.1

An objection was submitted to Council under SEPP No.1 addressing the current breach of the height development standard of LEP No.1.

The proposal fails to comply with Clause 15 (2) of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 in terms of permissible height and garden for development in 2(a2) zone.

Clause 15 of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 states inter-alia:-

15 (1) In this clause “ground level”, in relation to carrying out of development on a site, means the level of the site immediately below the development is carried out.

(2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b), 2(c), or 5(a):

(a) containing more than 2 storeys or

(b ) having a height greater than 7.2m metres measured vertically from ground level to the uppermost ceiling,

The current dwelling house is 2 storeys in height and a maximum of 8.0 metres in height as defined under HHLEP No.1.

Council in its assessment must consider the underlying objectives of particular development standard that is being breached. In this case the underlying objectives relating to height are identified in Local Environmental Plan No. 35 as quoted below:

(a) To avoid the adverse impacts associated with the excessive height, bulk and scale of development within the existing residential area;

(b) To ensure that buildings are compatible with the height, bulk and scale of the

existing and desired future character of the locality;




(c) To maintain and enhance the varied domestic scale, form and character of the residential area;

(d) To minimise visual impact, disruption to views, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight to

existing residential development; (e) To minimise the adverse impact on the Conservation Areas, Foreshore Scenic

Protection Area, items of environmental heritage significance and contributory buildings;

(f) To reduce the visual impact of development when viewed from the Lane Cove River

and Parramatta River as well as other public places such as parks, roads and community facilities.

The applicant has therefore submitted objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1, which justifies that strict compliance with the development standards are unnecessary or unreasonable in this circumstance. The conclusion that the SEPP 1 objection is valid and is supported by relevant case law as highlighted below.

In considering a SEPP 1 Objection, 5 principle questions need to be answered as set down by Lloyd J in Winton Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council ([2001] NSWLEC 46), where his honour states:

In applying the above-mentioned judgment, it seems to me that SEPP 1 requires answers to a number of questions (not necessarily in the following order). First , is the planning control in question a development standard? Second , what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard? Third , is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act? Fourth , is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case? Fifth , is the objection is well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must also look to see whether a development, which complies with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1

First: The planning control breached: LEP No.1 – Yes, it is a development standard.

The development standards breached are LEP1, Clause 15 (2) that limits the external ground to underside of uppermost ceiling level height to a maximum number of storeys of two and a maximum height of 7.2 metres.

Second: The objective of the height standard is to limit developments to a maximum height to avoid the adverse impacts associated with excessive height, bulk and scale of development and to ensure buildings are sympathetic with the existing and future character of the locality, while ensuring the items of environmental and contributory heritage are preserved. The proposal, notwithstanding the technical non-compliance with Clause 15(2) (b) meets the objective of the standard. Similarly, the minor non-compliance with the garden area provisions, which further reduces the standard, does not meet the objective of the standard.




Third: The aims of the Policy are to provide flexibility in the application of the planning controls. The SEPP No.1 Objection is consistent with the Policy, as outlined above and the relevant objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act:

a) To encourage

i. The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

ii. The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use

and development of land. Fourth: Compliance with the development standard is unnecessary, as outlined above. Fifth: The objection is well founded. The SEPP No.1 Objection prepared by the applicant argues that in the circumstances of the case, compliance is unreasonable for the following reasons: • The existing building has been previously approved by Hunters Hill Council

(DA99/1148 – determined 12 January 2000), it exceeds the ceiling limit and the two storey limit. The proposed alterations and additions do not alter the ceiling height nor make any change to the number of storeys in the building. The proposal is intended to improve the appearance of the building when viewed from the street and the Parramatta River.

• The proposal does not create any additional disruption to views, loss of privacy and loss of sunlight to existing residential development. The proposal reduces the visual impact of the existing building by improving the visual quality of the building.

• The proposal aims to reduce the apparent bulk of the building. • One of the main intentions of the proposal is to construct pergolas to reduce the

visual impact of the existing building. The pergolas add depth, shadow and texture to the exterior of the building.

In determining whether support should be given to the SEPP No. 1 objection, Council is required to assess whether the proposal is consistent with the relevant objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979, which are:

5(a) To encourage:

(i) The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment;

(ii) The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use

and development of the land.

The issues discussed above demonstrate that strict compliance with the standards is unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.




The proposal does not change the existing height of the building. The proposed development in relation to height would not increase the impact of the non-compliance on the streetscape and character of the area. It is considered that the application for alterations and additions should not hindered by the encroachment within the height and number of storey requirements of the site. The SEPP No.1 in relation to height is therefore considered appropriate in this instance. The proposed alterations and additions for the existing dwelling are considered acceptable, having regard to its relationship with the development in the locality and the amenity of adjoining properties and as a result would be consistent with the objectives of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1 and DCP No.15. Accordingly, having considered the SEPP No.1 objection to Clause 15 in the Hunters Hill LEP No.1, the strict application of the height development standards is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The arguments made within the SEPP No.1 specifically relate to the proposal complying with the aims and objectives of the LEP No.35. The SEPP No.1 objection in relation to the height non-conformity is therefore supported. Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows: Aims of plan

(1) This plan has the following aims with respect to the Sydney Harbour Catchment:

(a) to ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained:

(i) as an outstanding natural asset, and

(ii) as a public asset of national and heritage significance,

for existing and future generations,

(b) to ensure a healthy, sustainable environment on land and water,

(c) to achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment,

(d) to ensure a prosperous working harbour and an effective transport corridor,

(e) to encourage a culturally rich and vibrant place for people,

(f) to ensure accessibility to and along Sydney Harbour and its foreshores,




(g) to ensure the protection, maintenance and rehabilitation of watercourses, wetlands, riparian lands, remnant vegetation and ecological connectivity,

(h) to provide a consolidated, simplified and updated legislative framework for future planning.

(2) For the purpose of enabling these aims to be achieved in relation to the Foreshores and Waterways Area, this plan adopts the following principles:

(a) Sydney Harbour is to be recognised as a public resource, owned by the public, to be protected for the public good,

(b) the public good has precedence over the private good whenever and whatever change is proposed for Sydney Harbour or its foreshores,

(c) protection of the natural assets of Sydney Harbour has precedence over all other interests.

Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters for consideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application: 25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:

(a) the scale, form, design and siting of any building should be based on an analysis of:

(i) the land on which it is to be erected, and

(ii) the adjoining land, and

(iii) the likely future character of the locality,

(b) development should maintain, protect and enhance the unique visual qualities of Sydney Harbour and its islands, foreshores and tributaries,

(c) the cumulative impact of water-based development should not detract from the character of the waterways and adjoining foreshores.

The proposed works would be visible from the waterway and would satisfy the above aims of the policy and matters for consideration, in particular those of particular relevance pertaining to the appearance of the development from the waterway and foreshore, heritage issues and those requiring the protection and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the Parramatta River.




Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 The subject site is zoned residential 2(a2) (HHLEP No.1), dwelling houses are identified as a permissible use within the zone, subject to Council consent. Height of buildings

The existing dwelling house does not comply with Clause 15 (2) (a) and (b) of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 in terms of building height for development in 2 (a2) zone. It has a maximum building height of 8.0 metres and two storeys, being above the 7.2 metres building height requirement.

The proposed works do not exceed the height of the existing building, which contravenes the height requirements under clause 15 of the LEP No.1. The applicant has submitted an SEPP No.1 objection to the height breach, which is addressed under this Part.

Garden Area The plans indicate the garden area as unchanged as a result of this development and hence complies with the 60% minimum permissible under the provisions of Clause 16A - garden area under Hunters Hill LEP No.1. The applicant has provided that the landscaping of the site will be upgraded as per the landscape plan submitted with the application. Items of Environmental Heritage

The subject dwelling house is not in a Conservation Area and is not listed as a contributory item of environmental heritage under Schedule 7 of the LEP No.1 and, therefore, Clause 19 does not apply.

Conservation Area The site is not situated within a Conservation Area and so the provisions of Clause 19A do not apply: Foreshore Building Lines No part of the new development will be carried out within the 15 metre foreshore building line. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of LEP No. 1 which states:-

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked "Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation", unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D10


(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The subject site is visible from the water but the alterations and additions will not alter the current effect of the building when viewed from the water. As such, the development does not contravene the above provisions. 10.2. S.79C(1)(a)(ii) – any development control plan Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Devel opment

DCP 15 contains objectives that relate to all residential development within the Municipality of Hunters Hill. The objectives of DCP 15 state:

a. Development should be compatible with the landscape character of the area. Generally, the landscape character of Hunters Hill is encapsulated in the “tree” whether indigenous, native or exotic. Hunter’s Hill Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the area’s landscape character and natural environment.

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public

place, should be compatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the site and residential development in the immediate vicinity.

c. Development, particularly when viewed from public reserves, National

Parks, waterways or across valleys, should not be obtrusive in or upon the natural landscape.

d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity,

additions and new development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.

For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal is considered consistent with objectives (a), (b), (c) and (d) outlined above.

Garden Area

Complies. Height See Part 9.1 above. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

See above under part 9.1 above.

Setbacks The proposed alterations for the dwelling itself will not encroach on the setback requirements stipulated under Part 7.2 of DCP No.15.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D11


Solar Access Shadow diagrams were not required as the development as no part of the new development will impinge upon the solar access to adjoining premises. Privacy The proposed alterations and additions in general will not have any detrimental effect on the residents of the adjoining dwellings subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation. This matter is also referred to under ‘Submissions’. Accordingly, the proposal satisfies the objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15. Views The views of adjoining and nearby residents will not be affected by the proposed development. Front Fence The plans show the new front fence of masonry piers and plinth to range in height from 1.5 metres to 1.8 metres. This is in contravention of clause 9.10 of the DCP provisions, which restricts a front fence in these circumstances to a maximum height of 1.2 metres. Special Condition No.6 is set out in the recommendation to bring such work into conformity with the DCP. 10.3 S.79C(1)(a)(ii) – any draft environmental planning instrument that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of whi ch have been notified to the consent authority

There are no draft local environmental plans of relevance to the proposed development. 10.4. S.79C(1)(b) & (c) - the likely impacts of the development including

environmental impacts on both the natural and build environments and social and economic impacts the locality suitability of th e site for the development.

The proposed building works would not have a detrimental impact on the local environment when viewed from the street, adjoining properties or the waterway.

The proposed works are considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents or occupants of the adjoining properties or on the William Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would comply with the objectives as set under DCP No.15. Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator raised no objection to the development. Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer raised no objection to the proposed works. 10.5 S.79C(1)(d) - Any submissions made in acc ordance with the Act or the

Regulation The proposed development including the amended plans were notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 26 February 2008. Within the specified time period one (1) submission was received.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D12


10.6. S.79C(1)(e) - The public interest The proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the residents of adjoining and nearby properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in DCP No. 15 and LEP No.1, the application is considered acceptable. 11. SUBMISSIONS NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 6 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

1

Name & Address of Respondents

Summary of Submissions

Norm & Jan Waters 10 William Street HENLEY

• The proposed modifications to the existing cantilevered balcony at the rear of No.12 will entirely dominate our living, dining and entertaining areas

• The proposed timber batten screens to replace the existing glass screen are not acceptable as they will afford no privacy whatsoever if they are spaced as shown on the plan

• The rear deck to the existing family room overlooks our lower terrace and directly into our main family, living, dining balcony and entertaining areas

• The proposed modifications to the existing cantilev ered balcony at the rear of

No.12 will entirely dominate our living, dining and entertaining areas Comment: There will be no additional balcony areas created to the rear of the existing dwelling, which presently features a number of balconies. Therefore the existing level of privacy due to balconies is not likely to be exacerbated due to this development. • The proposed timber batten screens to replace the e xisting glass screen are

not acceptable as they will afford no privacy whats oever if they are spaced as shown on the plan

Comment: Council’s general policy is to eliminate glass screens and balustrades from that part of premises facing the water. It is considered that a timber batten screen could be constructed in such a way as to be as effective as say translucent glass screen. Condition No.3 has been set out in the recommendation to ensure that privacy is maximised through the use of timber privacy screens. • The rear deck to the existing family room overlooks our lower terrace and

directly into our main family, living, dining balco ny and entertaining areas Comment: This again is an existing deck with given levels of privacy. The works proposed will not be likely to make this situation worse.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D13


CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C and SEPP No.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the residents of the adjoining premises and, accordingly, is recommended for approval based on the upholding of the SEPP No.1 objection, subject to conditions. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates.

RECOMMENDATION

A. That the Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height standard of clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

B. That development application No. DA2008/1014 for alterations and additions to the

existing dwelling house including rainwater tanks at No.12 William Street, Henley, be approved subject to the following conditions.

Special Conditions: 1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by Ergo

Architecture & Interiors drawing Nos. 07RUG1 02 to 11 dated February 2008, as received by Council on 14 February 2008 and landscape plan prepared by Kwak & Associates drawing No.DA-L101 revision C dated 4 February 2008, as received by Council on 14 February 2008, except where amended by the conditions of this consent.

2. The external materials and colours to be used in the development being in accordance

with the sample board prepared by Ergo Architecture & Interiors as received by Council on 14 February 2008.

3. The timber battens to be installed as privacy screens to the edge of the balconies

being constructed in such a way as to maximise the privacy of the adjoining residents. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. The development being carried out in accordance with the Basix Certificate as

submitted on 14 February 2008 with the application. 5. The three (3) Camellias, incorrectly labelled as Figs, located on the southern boundary

of the site being retained and protected during building works. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

6. The proposed front fence and gates not exceeding 1.2 metres above footway level at

any point. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. The swimming pool fencing being replaced with metal palisade type safety fencing.

Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D14


8. The glass balustrade to the ground and first floor levels on the northern elevation being replaced with metal palisade type balustrading complying with the provisions of the BCA. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard conditions: A1, A4-A9, B1, B7 ($2,870), C1-C5, C19, C31-C34, C40, C44, C45, S1, SP2-SP10, W1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Map 2. Plans 3. SEPP No.1 objection 4. Objection letter


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D15


ITEM NO : 2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 07/1193 PROPOSAL : ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO DWELLING HOUSE,

AND LANDSCAPING PROPERTY : 10 EUTHELLA AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : IN + OUT PTY LTD OWNER : MS S B KELSEY DATE LODGED : 12 DECEMBER 2007 AND 10 MARCH 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1205/10 & 2007/1193 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

Council considered the report for the application for 10 Euthella Avenue, Hunters Hill at the Council meeting of 23 June 2008 where it was resolved as follows: 219/08 RESOLVED on the motion of Clr Astridge, seconded Clr Frame that the matter be

deferred and referred to the General Purpose Committee for on-site inspection. The site inspection is to take place on 28 July 2008 at 5.20pm.

The initial notification process resulted in submissions from the owners of five (5) premises raising issues to the proposal. The most recent plans, which deleted the accessible roof deck, were subject to re-notification resulted in no additional submissions being received.

Issues

• Loss of privacy (with earlier plans)

• Loss of solar access

• Increase in height beyond controls

• Loss of views (with earlier plans)

• Noise emission from air-conditioning equipment


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D16


Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval for reasons that:

1. It is permissible within the zoning;

2. It complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15; and

3. It will not have any undue detrimental effects on the amenity of the residents of the adjoining and nearby premises.


It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house as well as the partial demolition of sections of the building. The works to be carried out and the uses for the various parts of the dwelling are as follows:

• At lower ground floor level , there will be some external walls and spiral staircase demolished and new walls, staircase, entry lobby and garage door provided in their place.

That level will be used for a three-car garage, laundry, store/wine cellar and studio bedroom.

• At ground floor level , there will be some internal and external walls demolished and new terraces, courtyard, deck and external staircase to the western deck constructed.

That level will be used as a games room, store, powder room, dining / living room, kitchen, butlers pantry, bar and a new additional internal staircase.

• At first floor level , the new flat roofed addition will contain three bedrooms (one with an ensuite and a walk-in robe), a bathroom, staircase and a separated sitting room/cabana connected with the main structure by a glass floored and roofed link. A full width deck will be constructed across from the rear and to the west of the addition.

The original plans provided for an accessible roof deck to the western end of the building with balustrading partly of a 300mm masonry upturn and a 1 metre high glazed surround on top thereof for the lawn roof garden. Access to the roof would be via an external staircase. It also proposed air-conditioning equipment 2.2 metres wide x 2.3 metres long x 1.2 metres high on the roof. This feature was subsequently removed from the plans as per the amended proposal.

The external works involve the following:

Removal of the existing shed, steps and the Palm tree from the south west side of the building. A new external staircase will be constructed at the south-west end of the site. A stone faced wall up to 3 metres in height will be erected as a side return fence on the south west boundary to the east of the entrance. The surrounds of the site will be landscaped/maintained.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D17


3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE & LOCALITY

The subject site is situated on the north-east side of Euthella Street, Hunters Hill, south-east of Pitt Street. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and has a site area of 581m². It has a main frontage of 4.375m to the cul-de-sac bulb of Euthella Street and 16.335 metres to Joubert Street.

The site slopes down from the rear to Euthella Street by up to 12 metres and is flat from east to west.

Existing on the site is a two-storey flat roofed rendered and painted dwelling house constructed in the 1970s.

The site is within a Conservation Area but is not a listed heritage item. The premises adjoin a heritage listed item to the north.

Surrounding development generally consists of dwelling houses of two storeys and three storeys in height.

4. PROPERTY HISTORY

The proposal was the subject of preliminary consultation meetings held on 19 September 2007 and 12 November 2007. At the first meeting it was stated that the application would not be approved in that form. A number of changes were made to the plans for the second meeting.

The development application was submitted in a form similar to the latter preliminary plans as referred to the DCU.

Amendments were submitted to Council on 10 March 2008, as follows:

• delete the accessible roof garden and omitted the air conditioning features of the building

• delete the rear external staircase to the roof deck

• provide a window facing south-east to the courtyard for bedroom 3 on the first floor level

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS

5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 Yes Hunters Hill LEP No.1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes No.2 Joubert Street.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D18


6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development. 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health and Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage The site is not situated within the Conservation Area under the LEP No.1 and, as such, the proposal was not referred to the Conservation Advisory Panel. The application and formal amended plans were referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who by report dated 5 May 2008 stated the following:-

Heritage Status: adjoins Sch. 6 Item at 2 Joubert St (“Villa Euthella”), relatively prominent opposition in views from Tarban Creek Bridge when travelling north. Part visible from Tarban Creek. Statement of Heritage Impact: by In + Out Pty Ltd (Robin McInnes)- O.K., as far as it goes. Comments : The drawings date-stamped 31 Mar/ 1 Apr 2008 omit the roof garden from the earlier scheme, dated stamped 12 Dec 2007.

While the proposal still entails an increase in height of the building, which will lead to some loss of view from the grounds of “Villa Euthella”, it would appear that the losses will be of portions of the view downward to the roofs of the houses in Euthella Ave, and possibly part of the foreshore- for a relatively small sector of the overall views enjoyed by “Villa Euthella’.

Impacts on views of “Villa Euthella” from Tarban Creek/ Riverglade will be minimally affected, in my opinion, particularly so if the building is done in material, finishes and colours that have some texture and are dark, earthy and recessive. I have viewed the colour samples provided and note that they are electronically reproduced, and short of the actual swatches being considerably darker, should be of deeper tones than proposed.

Recommendation: Seek clarification/adjustment of the external materials finishes and colours. Given that a satisfactory resolution of this aspect of the design can be arrived at, I find the proposal to be generally supportable. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The plans were referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D19


7.5 Parks and Landscape The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Landscape Adviser who raised no objection to the plan, subject to condition. Condition No.8 in the recommendation relates to this matter. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C OF TH E ACT Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 sets out matters that Council shall take into consideration when determining the application. The assessment process in relation to such matters is detailed below. 8.1 S.79C(1)(a)(i) – The provision of any environme ntal planning instrument;

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows:

Aims of plan




(ii) as a public asset of national and heritage significance, for existing and future generations,











Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D20




Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters for consideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application:

25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:







As stated within the report, Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection to the revised proposed works in terms of the visibility of the development from the water. The proposed development would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the above aims of the policy and matters for consideration, in particular those of particular relevance pertaining to the appearance of the development from the waterway and foreshore, heritage issues and those requiring the protection and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the river. State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – (SEPP) N o.1

There is no SEPP No.1 objection submitted with this application for the development standards of height or garden area.

Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 The subject site is zoned residential 2(a1) under HHLEP No.1; dwelling houses are identified as a permissible use within the zone, subject to Council consent. Height The height of the proposal, being two-storeys and 6.5m complies with the development standards of two-storeys and 7.2 metres in height as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D21


Garden Area The proposed garden area of 51.1% is in compliance with the minimum of 50% as required under Clause 16A of LEP No.1. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states:

The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that the area shown by hatching on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 14 – Heritage Conservation” unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) The appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the waterway; and

(b) The impact of the proposed development of the view toward the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6 (b).

The subject site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed development would be visible from the waterway and it would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. Items of Environmental Heritage The proposal is considered to maintain the setting of the adjoining heritage item and would not detrimentally affect its heritage significance. 8.2 S.79C(1)(a)(iii) – any development control plan Development Control Plan No. 15 – Residential Devel opment Compliance Table:


PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HEIGHT Measure Storeys

7.2m 2

6.5m 2

Yes Yes

Garden Area 50% 51.1% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS (additions to house) West (Front) North-east (Rear) South-east (Side) North-west (Side)

Predom. Street Pattern 6 metres 1.5metres 1.5metres

No change 0.8m/2.0m 15 metres 1.2m/2.1m

Yes No Yes No/Yes

Front fence 1.5 metres 2.7m / 3.0m No


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D22


Garden Area

Complies. Height Complies. Heritage Conservation Areas Refer to “Items of Environmental Heritage” under “S.79C(1)(a)(i) above. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 4.2 of DCP No.15. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Refer to “Foreshore Scenic Protection Area” under “S.79C(1)(a)(i) – The Provisions of any Environmental Planning Instrument”. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 5.2 of DCP No.15. Setbacks The proposal indicates the rear and one of the side setback provisions of the DCP 15 are not given compliance in the plans.

On the rear of this very shallow site, the existing dwelling is sited a minimum of 1.2 metres from the north-east boundary. The proposal, which will provide for additions to the north-west end and a pavilion type cabana at the south-east end is considered reasonable due to the shallow depth of the subject site. Under different circumstances for a conventional shaped site, this would be a side boundary and would comply with the average setback requirements. On the north-west side boundary, the existing building has been constructed to within 1 metre of it at the closest point. The proposed development does not bring the building works any closer to that boundary. The additions are set back a minimum of 1.5 metres off that boundary in accordance with the DCP provisions. Under these circumstances, it is considered that the non-compliance is reasonable. Solar Access The proposed development is not considered to create any unreasonable overshadowing to adjoining premises. The majority of the mid-winter shadow effects of the additions will fall over Euthella Street. The remainder of the shadow effects will be within the shadow from the heritage listed dwelling adjoining to the north. Privacy It is considered that the proposal, as amended by the removal of the accessible roof deck, would not unreasonably impact upon the privacy of the residents of adjoining and nearby dwellings. Views The proposed works are considered to be reasonable from the aspect of shared water view loss from No.2 Joubert Street and No.8 Euthella Avenue. Such view loss is considered to be ‘minimal’ and ‘negligible’ respectively.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D23


This assessment is necessarily based on the adopted planning principles of the Land & Environment Court result from the Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council case. 8.3. S.79C(1)(b) & (c) - the likely impacts of the development including

environmental impacts on both the natural and build environments and social and economic impacts in the locality and suitabilit y of the site for the development.

The proposed works are considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents of adjoining properties, the Euthella Avenue streetscape or the views to and from the Tarban Creek. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would comply with the objectives stipulated under DCP No.15.

There would be no major impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed development.

As stated previously, it should be noted that the proposed development was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection to the proposed works. Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no objection to the proposed works, which adjoin a heritage listed property. 8.4. S.79C(1)(d) - Any submissions made in acco rdance with the Act or the

Regulations The amended plans were notified for ten (10) days in accordance with Council’s policy commencing on 27 March 2008. No further submissions were received as a result of this process. The submissions received have been addressed under the heading of submissions and appropriate comments have been provided in relation to those most recently expressed concerns. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. 8.5. S.79C(1)(e) - The public interest The proposed works are considered generally acceptable and should have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and based on compliance with the relevant development standards of LEP No.1 and the objectives in DCP No. 15, the application is considered reasonable for approval. 9. SUBMISSIONS The original proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 20 December 2007. Within the specified time period, objections were received from representatives of three (3) nearby premises.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D24


NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 6 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

Mr & Mrs R D Lyons 8 Euthella Avenue HUNTERS HILL Ian Swain 13 Euthella Avenue HUNTERS HILL David Ord 2 Joubert Street HUNTERS HILL 7 Ambrose Street Hunters Hill M E McMahon & Assoc Solicitors 44A Thomas Street BRONTE (for David Ord) Harry Swain 13 Euthella Avenue HUNTERS HILL

• The views from No.8 to the south from this level will disappear completely

• The new window of the upper level north elevation is in full view and overlooks the kitchen and balcony

• The lawned roof garden/terrace provides a usable 4th storey which completely overlooks the balcony, kitchen and entertaining area and looks directly into the master bedroom

• The elevations conveniently omit the proposed air conditioning and equipment

• The north elevation wall is very dominant and totally visible from the adjoining property

• I do not believe the boundary line or the

existing building have been correctly drawn

• The development will take away most of the privacy of my garden

• The development will take away most of the privacy of my garden

• The new development will greatly overshadow my garden and house

• I was not aware that you were allowed to build four storeys above street level in the Hunters Hill Municipality

• Structures cannot give the appearance of being higher than two storeys

• Intention to create an entertaining area that will cover a substantial portion of the roof area

• Air conditioning will be a source of noise pollution

• Our privacy will be unreasonably compromised

• We stand to lose a large portion of the view of Tarban Creek

• The imposition of an entertaining area on the roof because of the unreasonable impact on privacy

• If an approval is to be granted, it should be subject to a condition that the rooftop access be deleted

• Complete loss of privacy particularly from the extended deck


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D25


NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 6 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents


• Complete loss of privacy particularly from the extended deck

The comments in relation to the initial objections are set out below. • The views from No.8 to the south from this level wi ll disappear completely Comment: The view loss if opaque glass were to be used for the accessible roof deck would have been substantial sufficient to warrant a recommendation for refusal based on the Court principles adopted for view sharing. • The new window of the upper level north elevation i s in full view and

overlooks the kitchen and balcony Comment: The window referred to is a relatively narrow one and is off the master bedroom. It is considered that loss of privacy would be an issue. See special condition Nos. 6 and 7, which require a privacy screen and the deletion of the bedroom window on the north-western elevation. • The lawned roof garden/terrace provides a usable 4 th storey which completely

overlooks the balcony, kitchen and entertaining are a and looks directly into the master bedroom

Comment: Although the roof deck would not be deemed a separate storey, it would create unreasonable privacy issues, which would warrant a refusal or a major change. This has since been deleted from the application. • The elevations conveniently omit the proposed air c onditioning and

equipment Comment: This issue would normally be addressed by way of a condition of approval. Condition No.3 as set out in the recommendation covers this matter. • The north elevation wall is very dominant and total ly visible from the adjoining

property Comment: It is considered that the north elevation is not sufficiently large, out of scale or of poor design that would warrant a refusal or a change in the plans. • I do not believe the boundary line or the existing building have been correctly

drawn Comment: The boundary line and the existing building co-incide with the survey plan lodged with the application. • The development will take away most of the privacy of my garden Comment: It is considered that this property is sufficiently distant from the subject site that privacy loss will not be such that refusal would be warranted.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D26


• The development will take away most of the privacy of my garden Comment: Same as the comments above. • The new development will greatly overshadow my gard en and house Comment: The new development will not detrimentally overshadow the property involved. • I was not aware that you were allowed to build four storeys above street level

in the Hunters Hill Municipality Comment: The development as originally proposed would not be deemed to be a four storey building by definition. • Structures cannot give the appearance of being high er than two storeys Comment: The DCP does permit an elevation of a new dwelling to be of three storeys in appearance where one of those levels is for, say, a garage. • Intention to create an entertaining area that will cover a substantial portion of

the roof area Comment: It is the prerogative of an applicant to provide for an accessible roof deck as per this application. The issues to be addressed by Council are privacy loss and view loss. • Air conditioning will be a source of noise pollutio n Comment: See comment above. • Our privacy will be unreasonably compromised Comment: Privacy is a matter to be carefully addressed as per the DCP and if there is to be unreasonable loss of privacy, conditions can be used to overcome such problem or if it is of sufficient importance, refusal can be considered. • We stand to lose a large portion of the view of Tar ban Creek Comment: The same comments are as above relative to the balustrading for the proposed accessible roof deck. • The imposition of an entertaining area on the roof because of the

unreasonable impact on privacy Comment: This matter is addressed above. • If an approval is to be granted, it should be subje ct to a condition that the

rooftop access be deleted Comment: The applicant has subsequently deleted the accessible roof deck. • Complete loss of privacy particularly from the exte nded deck Comment: This matter is addressed above.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D27


• Complete loss of privacy particularly from the exte nded deck Comment: This matter is addressed above. Copies of the objection letters received are attached. The applicant has submitted a letter to Council dated 7 March 2008 addressing the objections received. A copy of this letter is attached. The notification of the amended plans, which in the main, removed the accessible roof deck, commenced on 27 March 2007 for ten (10) working days. No letters of objection were received as a result of the second exhibition. CONCLUSION The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, SEPP No.1, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly, the amended application is recommended for approval to satisfy the concerns of the neighbours. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No. 2007/1193 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at No.10 Euthella Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved , subject to the following conditions. Special Conditions:

1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by In + Out

Pty Ltd Architects, drawing Nos. 0706 DA01A to DA12A dated 25 February 2008, as received by Council on 10 march 2008, and landscape plan LS01 dated 1 December 2007 as received by Council on 12 December 2007, except where amended by conditions of consent.

2. The finished surface materials and colours to be used on the development being in

accordance with the External Colour/Materials Schedule as prepared by In + Out Pty Ltd Architects as received by Council on 12 December 2007.

3. No airconditioning equipment (if to be installed) being sited on the north-east or

north-west elevations of the dwelling or such building setbacks. Any such equipment to be acoustically treated to ensure that no noise above existing ambient background noise levels is to be emitted.

4. The new front fence on the Euthella Avenue alignment not exceeding 1.5 metres

above footway level. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

5. The concrete gravel roof not being accessible from inside or outside of the dwelling

house. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D28


6. The provision of a suitable 1.8 metre high privacy screen on the north-western edge

of the first floor balcony. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

7. The window to the bedroom on the north-west elevation of the first floor being

deleted for the purpose of privacy. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

8. Two additional shade tree being planted on the site; species including Pittosporum

rhombifolium (Orange Berried Pittosporum) and Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) are considered suitable alternatives. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions: A1, A4 to A9, B1, B7($2,100), C1 to C5, C12, C19, C31 to C34, C44, C45, D1, D2, L4, PE8, S1, S7, W1.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed plans 3. Objection letters 4. Submission from Applicant


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D29


ITEM NO : 3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 07/1002 PROPOSAL : SECTION 82A REVIEW OF REFUSAL OF

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR RENOVATIONS & ATTIC ADDITIONS TO TOWNHOUSE

PROPERTY : 12/10 RYDE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : ATTIC ROOF CONVERSIONS OWNER : MR S J PHILLIPS & MS M SAVVA DATE LODGED : 16 APRIL 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1635/12-10 & DA 07/1002 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The applicant is seeking a review by Council under S.82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 of the refusal given on 10 August 2007 under delegated authority of Development Application 07/1002 for the construction of an attic floor with a dormer window to the rear two storey townhouse No.12. Issues

The development is contrary to the height standard as set out under clause 15 of the HH LEP No.1.

Objections

No submissions were received as a result of re-notification of this application.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for refusal because it:

1. does not satisfy the objection under SEPP No.1

2. does not comply with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. will have adverse effects on the amenity of the residents of adjoining properties and

4. will create an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D30


2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal is to carry out works to the rear townhouse No.12 fronting Short Street and Luke Street in the complex, which has its main frontage to Ryde Road. The details are as follows:

• Remove the existing fold-down ladder, which provides access to the existing attic floor level and its replacement with a fixed staircase.

• Construct a dormer window and roof framing and ceiling alterations for the attic floor level on the north-east side of the roof.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE & LOCALITY

The subject site, being a corner allotment, is situated on the north-eastern side of Ryde Road and on the eastern side of Luke Street. The allotment is legally referred to as Lot 12 in SP 70417. The site is triangular in shape and is relatively flat.

Standing on the subject site are two-storey and attic townhouses fronting Ryde Road along with two-storey townhouses at the rear with common car parking at basement level.

Surrounding and nearby development consists of dwelling houses of two-storeys and single-storey in height, a two-storey commercial building, a service station, St.Joseph’s college, a two-storey residential flat building and a pair of new duplexes.

4. PROPERTY HISTORY

No relevant development application earlier than the decision on this particular proposal. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(b) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP Waterways Yes Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes, Saint Josephs College 57 Ryde Road 6. POLICY CONTROLS

Development Control Plan No.15 (Residential Development) 7. REFERRALS

7.1 External Approval Bodies

Not applicable.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D31


7.2 Health & Building

Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage

The site is within a conservation area. As the works will not be discernable from the street in that the dormer window faces into the centre of the townhouse complex, this application was not considered a heritage issue and was not referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The original proposal was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who advised that subject to conditions, there are no objections in respect of this development. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The landscape plan lodged with the development application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who raised no objection to the proposal. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings: 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION

9.1 State Environmental Planning Polic ies (SEPPs)

The proposal fails to comply with the prescribed (2) storey and 7.2 metre height limit of Clause 15 – Height under LEP No.1. Clause 15 (2) of Local Environmental Plan No.1 states:

15 (2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1),

2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b), 2(c), or 5(a): a. containing more than 2 storeys; or b. having a height greater than 7.2 meters measured

vertically from ground level to the uppermost ceiling, or both.

Also, the definition of “Storey” under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, states that:

Storey means the space within a building which is situated between one floor level and the floor level next above or, if there is no floor above, the ceiling or roof above, but does not include: (a) any such space which is designed, constructed or adapted solely for the

accommodation of: (i) lift shafts and meter rooms; or (ii) storerooms having a ceiling height not exceeding 1400mm; or (iii) foundation areas not exceeding a height of 1400mm above ground

level, or (b) a car parking area not projecting more than 1400mm above ground level at

any point.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D32


The proposal has an approximate height of 8.5 metres and containing three (3) storeys. The proposed works to the existing two storey townhouse would introduce a new element, which projects outside Council’s height control contained within Clause 15 and clause 38 of LEP No.1 and would breach these controls, which could not be supported. It should be noted that the originally submitted Statement of Environmental Effects did not acknowledge the non-compliance with the height requirements in stating ‘No change in external height is proposed’ . No SEPP No.1 objection was lodged with the original DA. A SEPP No.1 objection was subsequently submitted for this height non-compliance with this application for review. The Applicant first addressed the objectives of SEPP No.1 then proceeds to address the effects of the proposal in relation to the Policy. A copy of the objection is attached. In the objection, it is stated that:-

‘This SEPP No.1 Objection is required only because the proposal fails to satisfy the standard in Clause 38(3)(a) of the LEP because the subject townhouse does not front into Ryde Road. The existing development on the subject site consists of ten townhouses facing Ryde Road and three townhouses at the rear facing the courtyard of the development. The three townhouses at the rear have access to Luke and Short Streets at the rear of the site. The subject townhouse is the middle of the three townhouses at the rear. Townhouse Nos.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 10 along Ryde Road have dormer windows on the roof overlooking the central courtyard of the subject site. The application is for the provision of an access to the existing attic area and to add a dormer window to the front of the attic area facing the courtyard. The style and scale of the proposed dormer is similar to the other dormer windows facing the courtyard. There is no dormer proposed on the side fronting Luke and Short Streets. This new dormer on the subject townhouse is in the middle of the building and below the existing ridgeline of the townhouse. The location of the proposed dormer provides symmetry to the three attached townhouses at this rear corner of the subject site. The provision of the dormer window does not add any significant height, bulk or scale to the existing development. The new dormer will have no impact on overshadowing or any additional overlooking of the central courtyard. Like the other dormers, the proposed window is above the first floor within the existing roofspace and looks out over the existing courtyard. There is enough separation between the subject townhouse and those along Ryde Road to ensure that privacy between buildings is maintained. The owners of the other townhouses have no objections to this proposal. Approval of this application will not create any undesirable precedent because of the other dormers on the site. Any other application a dormer window on any of the other townhouses will have to be considered on its merits. Notwithstanding the above non-compliance with the numerical standard, the proposal easily satisfies the above relevant objectives of Clause 2 of the LEP. The proposal is not contrary to the provisions of DCP No.15. The proposal faces an internal courtyard and will not be any more visible from any public place than the existing dormers of other townhouses.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D33


Approval of this application will provide a useful amenity to the occupiers of the townhouse without detracting from the amenity of the area and from the character of the built environment.’

The author of the objection is in error when he states that the development is not contrary to the provisions of clause 15 of the LEP. The standard is for a two storey and 7.2 metre height limit. This has to also be addressed as a development standard under the planning instrument in the objection. As stated above and in the compliance table, the development will be three storeys and 8.5 metres in height.

Council is of the opinion that the height of the dwelling to be increased by a maximum of 1.3 metres and the proposal essentially introduces another storey to the townhouse such that what was a two (2) storey conforming townhouse will now become a three- storey townhouse. Persons purchasing the adjoining townhouses or those facing Ryde Road would expect that the three townhouses to the rear would not become three storeys nor have dormer windows facing into the courtyard and the rear of the townhouses fronting Ryde Road. There are adverse affects resultant from the breach which cannot be reasonably justified. The SEPP 1 fails to have regard to the aims and objectives of the height standards as contained in LEP No.1 or within DCP 15, with the principal justification being based on the orderly and economic use of the building. As a result of the above-mentioned concerns, the submitted SEPP No.1 objection is not considered to be supportable. 9.2 Regional Environment Plans (REPs)

Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation

Pursuant to section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Attic Roof Conversions, the applicant for the proposal, is seeking a review of the Council’s determination of Development Application 07/1033, which refused the development application.

Procedure - 82A Review of determination

(1) If the consent authority is a council, an applicant may request the council to review a determination of the applicant’s application.

(2) A request for a review may be made at any time, subject to subsection (2A).

(2A) A determination cannot be reviewed:

(a) after the time limited for the making of an appeal under section 97 expires, if no such appeal is made against the determination, or

(b) after an appeal under section 97 against the determination is disposed of by the Court, if such an appeal is made against the determination.

(3) The prescribed fee must be paid in connection with a request for a review.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D34


(3A) In requesting a review, the applicant may make amendments to the development described in the original application, subject to subsection (4) (c).

(4) The council may review the determination if:

(a) it has notified the request for review in accordance with:

(i) the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii) a development control plan, if the council has made a development control plan under section 72 that requires the notification or advertising of requests for the review of its determinations, and

(b) it has considered any submissions made concerning the request for review within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be, and

(c) in the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority is satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application.

(4A) As a consequence of its review, the council may confirm or change the determination.

(5) The decision whether or not to review the determination must not be made by the person who made the determination unless that person was the council, but is to be made by a person who is qualified under subsection (6) to make the review.

(6) If the council reviews the determination, the review must be made by:

(a) if the determination was made by a delegate of the council - the council or another delegate of the council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or

(b) if the determination was made by the council—the council. Supporting documentation In support of the application, the town planner for the applicant by letter dated 25 February 2008 stated in part:-

‘There is no change to the proposal and the plans submitted are identical to the original application. Annexed to this letter is an Objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to address Clause 38 of the Hunters Hill Local environmental Plan No.1.’


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D35


10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO.1

10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Env ironmental Plan No.1 and Zone

The proposal is permissible with consent under the Residential 2(b) zoning but does not comply with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The LEP sets out the criteria that a new development is required to comply with. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table

The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls

Proposed Control Compliance

Height 3 storeys 8.5 metres

2 storeys 7.2 metres

No No

10.3 Site Area Requirements

Not applicable. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi- unit housing-density and garden

area controls

No change to garden area. The height standards are breached however. 10.5 Height of Buildings

The height does not comply with the provisions of clause 15 or clause 38 of LEP No.1. 10.6 Garden Area

No change to garden area. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore building lines

Not applicable.

10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:

18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked ‘Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14. - Heritage Conservation’, unless it has made an assessment of:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D36


(c) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and (d) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the

waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The proposed works would be not visible from the waterway. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards

Not applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

No relevant draft amendments apply to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Residential Development Control Plan No.15

Planning Policy – All Development

Development Control Plan No 15 – Residential Development is the policy that applies to residential development. The purpose of the plan is to provide more detailed planning and building controls than are available in LEP No.1, as amended. One of the functions of DCP No.15 is to establish parameters for the assessment of amenity issues such as appearance and character, privacy, solar access, preservation of views and car parking. The objectives as outlined in DCP No. 15 include:

d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity,

additions and new development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.

It is considered that the proposal does not comply with sub-clause (d) of the objectives of DCP No.15, as the development when viewed from within the townhouse complex would not be compatible with the desired character of the development adjoining the site. 12.1 Compliance Table - Residential Development Control Plan No.15 Compliance with Current DCP Controls




No No

Scale Not appropriate in its setting.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D37


Design Parameters

The proposal meets the requirements of Part 3.2 (a)(i), being Design Parameters, under Hunters Hill DCP No.15, which states:

3.2 Design Parameters

“(a) Development should ensure that the size and shape of development, the extent of cut and fill, the type and colour of building materials, the design of roofs (in terms of materials, colour, pitch, etc) and the amount and type of landscaping, are:

(i) Compatible with the character and scale of surrounding residential development.”

The development will be out of character with that of the adjoining development.

Heritage Conservation Areas

It is considered that the development will not create an issue under the provisions of the LEP for the Conservation Area. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

See part 10.9 above. Visually Prominent Sites

Not applicable. Height

Does not comply with clause 7.1 of the DCP provisions. See part 9.1 above. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

No change to setbacks. Garden Area

No change to garden area. Solar Access

Reasonable solar access will be maintained for the premises to the south in accordance with the general requirements of clause 7.4 of the DCP. Privacy

There will be some loss of privacy to the adjoining and nearby residents of the townhouse complex, thus being contrary to the provisions of clause 7.5 of the DCP. Views

Not applicable.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D38


Car Parking

No change to parking arrangements. Garages & Carports

Not applicable. Fences

No change to the existing fencing of the premises. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The likely impacts of the development are such that there will be an undesirable precedent created if approval is granted. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 21 April 2008. Within the specified time period, no letters of objection were received. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and the relevant development standards and objectives in LEP No. 1 and DCP No. 15 the application is not considered acceptable. The State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection in relation to height of Buildings is not considered to have been properly justified in the circumstances of the case. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would detrimentally impact on the amenity of the locality, would set an undesirable precedent and, accordingly, is recommended for refusal. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION A. That the State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objection, lodged with Council,

with respect to ‘Height of buildings’, is not supported in the circumstances of the case.

B. That the review of determination under Section 82A of the Environmental; Planning

& Assessment Act of the decision to refuse the Development Application No.07/1002 for alterations and additions plus an accessible roof deck at No.12/10 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill, be confirmed based on the following reasons:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D39


1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to sub-sections (1)(a)(iii), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (1)(e).

2. The proposal fails to comply with the Height standard under Clause 15 and

clause 38 of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1. The SEPP No.1 Objection submitted to address this non-compliance is not supported.

3. The proposal fails to comply with Part 7.5, being ‘Privacy’ under DCP No.15,

in particular Part 7.5.1 and 7.5.2. 4. The proposal does not comply with the provisions of DCP No 15 –

Residential Development, as it will have a detrimental impact on the existing and desired future amenity of the residents of adjoining properties.

5. The proposal is contrary to the public interest and would create an

undesirable precedent undermining Council’s planning objectives and policies in this area.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. SEPP No.1 submission


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D40


ITEM NO : 4

SUBJECT : LOT 201 DP878383 SALTER STREET HUNTLEYS COVE-DRAFT AMENDMENT 53 TO HUNTERS HILL LEP NO. 1

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : BRUCE MC DONALD

FILE : 770/82

INTRODUCTION This matter involves amendment to Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No 1 to provide for the subject lot to be zoned in part Residential 2(a1), Residential (2c), Existing Recreation 6(a) and 5(a) Special Uses Heritage Conservation. The amendment also permits construction of a building of not more than 3 habitable levels above a basement provided it does not exceed 12m to the uppermost roof ridge. The draft amendment and supporting material was placed on public exhibition between 23 April and 23 May 2008. Three submissions were received during the exhibition period. BACKGROUND This matter was initiated by a rezoning application and concurrent development application lodged in August 2006. In summary the proposal provides for the residential development of eleven (11) townhouses on that part of the site to be zoned Residential 2(c), a dwelling house on that part to be zoned Residential 2(a1) and the transfer to Council of the land to be zoned Open Space 6(a) for addition to the adjoining Riverglade reserve. In order to allow the community to comment on the rezoning proposal before consideration of the proposal Council publicly exhibited the application and supporting material from 14 March 2007 to 13 April.2007. One submission was received referring concerns relating to heritage and impingement on views. After further consideration Council at its meeting of 23 April 2007 resolved to prepare an LEP amendment, seek the required certificate from the Planning of Department under Section 65 of the Act, consult with public authorities and to advise the objector of the basis on which Council was proceeding to prepare an LEP amendment. The Department of Planning’s notification under Section 54 of the Act, allowing Council to proceed with the LEP amendment was given subject to the proposed open space zone being designated Recreation 6(a) instead of Recreation 6(b) as nominated in Council’s resolution. The Department also required Council to consult with the Heritage Council. A development application relating to the proposed residential development has been approved by Council. A Construction Certificate for that development has not yet issued. An application for subdivision involving the creation of 4 lots, generally according with the zone boundaries proposed in the LEP amendment has been approved by Council and has now been registered. A plan of the subdivision is attached.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D41


A Planning Agreement providing for the transfer free of cost of Lot 3 in the proposed subdivision to Council as Open Space has been concluded. Consultations with Government authorities Prior to the LEP amendment being exhibited the proposal was referred to the following Government authorities inviting comment: • Telstra • Roads and Traffic Authority • Energy Australia • Sydney Water • NSW Heritage Office • Police Department • Department of Education • Department of Housing The Member for Lane Cove was also invited to comment. Replies were received from Energy Australia, NSW Police and the R.T.A. These raised no issues. While no response was received from the Heritage Council, it was consulted earlier in relation to the proposed development plans and the proposed LEP amendment, and has earlier advised it is prepared to issue an approval to the development under the provisions of the Heritage Act. Public consultation As indicated earlier in the report the proposed LEP amendment was formally publicly exhibited from between 23 April 2008 and 23 May 2008. Letters were sent to 142 ratepayers outlining the proposal. A copy of the site plan and proposed new zones was provided. SUBMISSIONS 103/24 Karrabee Ave, Huntleys Cove. This submission raised no objection on the assumption that the application is to formalise the existing situation. Comment: The proposed LEP amendment gives effect to the arrangements determined in conjunction with Councils earlier development approvals, and to negotiations to secure the open space cartilage. 6/22 Karrabee Ave, Huntleys Cove. This submission raised no objection on the understanding a section of the land to be rezoned Residential 2(a1) is to be transferred to the reserve to allow access from Orchid Court to the reserve and to Salter Street. The writer notes that the plan supplied was not of sufficient detail to show this arrangement.

Comment: The arrangement is shown on the attached plan of subdivision. It can be seen that Lot 3 contains a strip that extends into the area of the site to be zoned Residential 2 (a1). This strip is part of the land to be transferred to Council under the negotiated Development Agreement. That arrangement allows access to the adjoining residential complex in the manner understood by the writer. Given that the land will be transferred to Council as part of the public reserve allotment it is appropriate for it to also be zoned Existing Recreation 6(a). That will make it’s status and purpose quite clear.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D42


G06/16 Karrabee Ave, Huntleys Cove. This submission raises objection to this application on the following grounds: • Disadvantage to Hunters Hill Municipality and the Priory by allowing the proposed

zoning changes as they will set a future and detrimental precedent. The writer suggests the existing Special Uses 5(a) zoning be retained. The writer states that Council has a serious trustee role in protecting the Priory and its curtilage for many stakeholders.

• The developer, having purchased the land will be aware of Council guidelines and heritage listing of the cartilage at the time of purchase and therefore will not be disadvantaged by the retention of the 5(a) the zoning.

• Reference is made to foundations revealed by earlier excavations and the possibility of others. It is stated that the Heritage Council is a joint consent authority with Council and has a continuing role in the preservation of the site that should not be undermined by any change of zoning.

• The change of zoning will remove current restrictions on over development secured by the existing zoning and leave the site open to undesirable amendments of the current approvals or future applications inconsistent with the environs of the Priory. It is of concern that Councils defensive position at appeal could be diluted. It is asserted that any development on this area should be done under the terms of the 5(a) zoning.

Comment: This LEP amendment stems from Councils concern to secure long term public tenure and management of the Priory and the most important elements of it’s curtilage and setting given the decision of the Department of Health, the earlier longstanding owner of the site, to sell the property in the open market to produce revenue to apply to the acquisition of new health facilities. Council became concerned for its future as inevitability the site would be developed in some manner. This LEP amendment provides zone delineations reflecting planning arrangements that will regulate use of the land by: i) Permitting development of selected parts of the site at an intensity and scale

compatible with the scale and setting of the Priory, its curtilage and nearby development,

ii) Remove the uncertainty surrounding the extent, form and location of development that can potentially occur under the present zoning of the site as Special Uses 5(a)

iii) Secure through a Planning Agreement transfer to Councils care control and management at no cost the curtilage lands proposed to be zoned Recreation 6(a).

Should amendments to the current approval or a new proposal be advanced it is agreed, provided the approved subdivision of the site were registered, that the approval of the Heritage Council would not be required as the lot subject of the application would not contain the Priory ie the heritage item. However, Council as the consent authority in its assessment would be required to consider the impact t of any new proposal on this heritage item and its context. Most importantly if a new proposal was to be advanced under the proposed zoning arrangements it would need to be contained to that part of the site to be zoned Residential 2(a), in contrast to the current position which places no limits or definition on the extent of the site that might be proposed for development. As a result of negotiations separate from those resulting in the conclusion of the Planning Agreement, care and management of the allotment that contains the Priory building has transferred to Council. Although not directly related to the submission, that measure adds further protection to the heritage value of heritage item.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D43


It is considered these arrangements will combine to result in high levels of protection and stewardship of the priory and its most important contextual features. CONCLUSION The proposed LEP amendment has been publicly notified twice. As a result of the formal exhibition of the LEP amendment in accordance with Section 66 of the Act, only one substantive objection was received. As discussed in this report it is considered the amendments will not in practice result in the consequences that are of concern to the objector. The Heritage Council did not respond to the formal notification of the proposed amendment. The Heritage Council was also notified of the associated development proposals over the site and raised no concerns. The planning provisions proposed by the LEP amendment are considered to result in more certain parameters for regulating the sites development than now prevail.

Critically the Planning Agreement developed which will apply as an outcome of the sites development and subdivision in keeping with the proposed LEP amendment will result in public ownership of the extensive curtilage area. This will result in its conservation and incorporation into Riverglade Reserve and allow it to be managed consistently with the heritage qualities and status of the Priory. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the report be received and noted.

2. Adopt the draft Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.53 attached to this report, incorporating an amendment to the Plan Map providing for all of Lot 3 DP1128452 be zoned Existing Recreation 6(a).

3. Notify the Department of Planning of the adoption of draft Hunters Hill Local

Environmental Plan No. 53, prepare a report under Section 69 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and request the Minister to make the plan.

4. Advise the authors of the submissions of Councils resolution.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 53 2. Locality Maps 3. Submissions


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D44


ITEM NO : 5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 07/1060 PROPOSAL : REFUSAL FOR UPPER LEVEL ADDITION OF

RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO MIXED DEVELOPMENT BUILDING – S.82A REVIEW

PROPERTY : 3-7 COWELL STREET, GLADESVILLE APPLICANT : JECCON & YOUMA CONSTRUCTIONS OWNER : JECCON & YOUMA CONSTRUCTIONS

DATE LODGED : 10 OCTOBER 2007 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 3-7/1130 & DA2007-1060

1. SUMMARY

The application for the S.82A review of the original refusal is required under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act to be considered by Council.

One (1) letter of objection was received from the residents of nearby premises.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for refusal for reasons as set out in the recommendation.


To provide for an additional seven x two level units and two (2) penthouses making for a total of forty (40) units to the part 3-storey, part 4-storey mixed development nearing completion on the site. Two (2) retail tenancies will be provided facing Signal Place along with a total of eighty two (82) car parking spaces at a common basement level. The additional two-storey element will be constructed on top of the three-storey western section of the building facing south-west. The single-storey penthouse type additions will be provided in the centre of the building at the western end of the three-storey section of the two x three-storey and part four storey wings. The additional units will comprise five (5) x 2-bed and two (2) x 1-bed double level units and two (2) x 3-bed penthouse type units.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D45


The building is designed as a U shape allowing for an active retail section to face Signal Place, commercial office suites adaptable as retail with residential above to face Cowell Street and residential wings to the rear. A 12m wide landscaped podium/courtyard separates the two wings of residential buildings. A two level basement carpark is provided with access from the north eastern corner of the site from Cowell Street, which accommodates 82 carspaces. The carpark is designed to provide separate commercial (40 staff/customer) and residential (18 tenant and visitor) parking plus an additional 24 spaces for the new development. In accordance with the DCP and Masterplan, a one-way public access is proposed to the north west and rear of the site to link into the proposed underground Council carpark in Signal Place, which is to be transformed into a public square at ground level as part of the master plan. Separate vehicular access and identifiable pedestrian access is proposed for the various separate uses. The building by virtue of its built form is expressed to read as three distinct pavilions: a building facing Cowell Street; a building facing Signal Place and a residential building to the rear. This approach assists in distinguishing the different uses and the respective functions and relationships to public places and internal open spaces. This approach is emphasised by the sympathetic and integrated building form, yet subtle variation in architectural detail and uses of material, textures and colours. Variations in roof forms are proposed including flat roofs and modern interpretations of mansards with metal deck sheeting, to provide visual interest. A draft Planning Agreement between the owners and Council has been submitted with the application. The current submission with Council is for a review under S.82A of the E.P.& A.Act of the delegated authority decision to refuse the development application for additional floors over part of the development nearing completion on the site. In lodging this application, the applicant relied on the earlier submission to Council of the development application which included documentation as to SEPP No.1 and Statement of Environmental Effects. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY The subject site is situated on the southern side of Cowell Street towards the north-east corner of Flagstaff Street and directly across from the Council’s temporary carpark at 4-6 Cowell Street, which is earmarked as a development site. To the immediate west is Signal Station Place (Cowell Street Car Park), identified in Council’s masterplan as a future civic place. The rear (south east) is lower density single storey residential housing fronting Junction Street, with rear yards and principal private open space areas to the rear and adjoining the subject site. The subject site consists of three (3) allotments with an overall site area of approximately 2322m2, with the following characteristics: Eastern boundary – 48.135m; Northern (Cowell Street) front boundary – 54.865m; Western (Signal Station Place) boundary – 47.25m; Southern (rear) boundary – 43.89m. The site exhibits a cross slope from west to east of 1:9 (i.e. 5.1m over the 54.865m frontage).


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D46


4. PROPERTY HISTORY Development approval (DA03/1164) was granted by Council on 27 September 2004 for the erection of a U-shaped mixed development comprising ground floor retail space and thirty one (31) dwellings at the upper levels over a basement carpark containing fifty eight (58) spaces. A S.96 application to modify the consent was approved in 2006 to modify the original consent to provide for additional basement car parking. On 12 September 2007, development application (DA07-1060) was refused under delegated authority for additions on the roof for residential units to the mixed development building on the site for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79(C) of the Environmental

Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to clauses (1)(a)(iii), (b)(c) and (e) 2. The proposal fails to comply with the Height control under Clause 15(4) of the

Hunters Hill LEP No.1 3. The proposal fails to comply with Part 2, being ‘Streetscape’ under Hunters Hill DCP

No.21 4. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 3, being Height’ under

Hunters Hill DCP No.21 5. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 6, being ‘Landscaping’

under Hunters Hill DCP No.21 6. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 8, being Access and

parking under Hunters Hill DCP No.21 7. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Hunters Hill DCP No.22 –

Cowell Street Gladesville 8. The proposal is contrary to the public interest and would create an undesirable

precedent undermining Council’s planning objectives. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS LEP No 1

Zone: Business 3(a) General Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: No Development Control Plan: No. 21 – Commercial Development Development Control Plan No.22 - Cowell Street Gladesville State Environmental Planning Policy:Yes SEPP No. 65 – Quality of Residential Flat Development SEPP No 1 - Development Standards Regional Environmental Plans: No Listed Heritage item: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No Contributory Building: Yes (3, 5, 7 Cowell Street) 6. PLAN/POLICY CONTROLS The following table provides a numerical (quantitative) assessment of the relevant development standards and controls applying to the site under various Council planning instruments and planning policies. A more detailed performance (qualitative) assessment is provided in the body of the report under the Planning Consideration and Neighbour Notification sections.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D47



PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

HH LEP HEIGHT 3 storeys 5 storeys No -see SEPP

No.1 9 m to ceiling 18.6m No- see SEPP

No.1 DCP 22 – COWELL STREET HEIGHT Max height of building RL 59.5 RL62.77 No Max height of top of parapet RL 60.5 RL64.10 No Max height top of lift overruns, plant rooms etc

RL 61.5

RL64.10

No

Max No of habitable floors 3 5 No Max external wall height adjacent Signal Station Place

9m 18.6m No

All roof structure, lift overruns, etc to be within 35 degree from top of external wall

Within 35 degree

N/A N/A

SETBACKS North/West (Cowell St)

L1 L2 L3 North/East (side) Carpark L1 L2 L3 South/West (side)

Car parking totally below GL Retail frontage L3 South/East (rear)

Car parking totally below GL L1, L2 Retail L3

5m 5m 5m/9m 9m 9m 3m 3m Varies 6m 3m 5m 12m 12m 18m

5.5m 5.5m 5.5/2.5mm 9.0m – 10.5m 3.5m – 4.0m 4.0m 4.0m Varies 6m 3m to balcony edge 5m 12m/10m balcony 12m 11.6m

Yes Yes Yes/No (level 2-existing) Yes(level 3) Yes(level 4) Yes(level 4) Yes(level 4) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No-existing

CAR PARKING 1 space / each unit 1 visitor/ every 5 units

retail/office

40 8 visitor 10 7 TOTAL = 65

37 2 visitor 27customer 16 staff TOTAL = 82

No No Yes No Yes


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D48


DCP 21 – Commercial Development

HEIGHT 3 storeys 9 metres

5-storeys 16 metres

No No

DENSITY 1residential unit/75m2 site area Min proportion of commercial at Ground floor

2,323sqm 50%

3,000sqm 72%

No Yes

LANDSCAPING Greater of 20% of site area or 20m2 per unit

800sqm No

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE Min 20m2 per unit

14m2 – 43m2 Yes

SETBACKS Side (residential) Rear

1.5m 4.0m

4m (4) 12m

Yes Yes

CAR PARKING 60 spaces 82 spaces Yes 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C Section 79C of the EP& A Act, 1979 lists the matters the Council shall take into consideration when determining a development application. The assessment process has taken into consideration the relevant matters as detailed below: 8.1 S.79C(1)(a)(i) The Provisions of Any Enviro nmental Planning Instrument SEPP No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development SEPP 65 provides Design Principles under the following headings: 1. General approach, 2. Context, 3. Scale, 4. Built Form, 5. Density, 6. Aesthetics, 7. Amenity, 8. Resource, energy & water efficiency, 9. Social dimensions, 10. Safety & Security.

The planning consultant for the applicant to the original development application has addressed each of these design principles in detail. However, for the sake of minimising the reporting on this application, which is recommended for refusal, detailed commentary is not provided in relation to such Policy. 8.2 Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 ( as amended) The relevant provisions are addressed below: (a) Zoning The subject site is zoned Business 3(a) General in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, gazetted on the 10th December 1982. The proposed development constitutes “shops with housing” which is permissible within the zone subject to consent. (b) Objectives Whilst there are no specific objectives relating to the Business Zone, the following relevant general aims and objectives of the Plan apply:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D49


To conserve the identity of the Municipality of Hun ter's Hill, Council as established by its heritage, character, topography and residential amenity, by

(a) Conserving the environmental heritage significance, the foreshore and riverscape, the townscape quality and tree covered environment of the Municipality through regulation of the use and development of land, buildings and structures;

(b) retaining specific evidence of the thematic development of the

environmental heritage of the Municipality through conservation of items of environmental heritage;

(b1) integrating heritage conservation into the planning and

development control processes; (b2) providing for public involvement in the matters relating to the

conservation of the area's environmental heritage; (b3) ensuring that new development is undertaken in a manner that is

sympathetic to, and does not detract from, the heritage significance of the items and their settings, as well as streetscapes and landscapes and the distinctive character that they impart to the land to which this plan applies.

(c) increasing the area and standard of public open space in the Municipality; (d) provide off-street parking facilities at or near shopping centres at Boronia

Park, Gladesville and Hunters Hill; and (e) providing or assisting in the provision of public amenities and support

services consistent with the development of the area. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the LEP. (c) Height and Number of Storeys The proposal fails to comply with Clause 15(4) of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 (HHLEP) in terms of the permissible maximum height and permissible number of storeys. LEP 1 stipulates a height limit of 3 storeys and a maximum height of 9 metres measured vertically from any point on the ground level to the uppermost ceiling. The proposed development has 5 storeys and a maximum height of up to 16m approximately, as per the definition of LEP 1. The applicant has submitted a SEPP No.1 Objection to address the non-compliance. In considering a SEPP 1 Objection, 5 questions need to be answered (Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46):

It is considered that the SEPP No.1 objection is not justified in this instance as there is too great a difference between the development standards for height and that applied for by the applicant. The proper approach would be to either wait for the gazettal of the amending LEP for the Gladesville centre or to submit an application to Council for a site specific LEP for this development.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D50


8.3 S.79C(1)(a)(ii) Any draft planning instrumen t that is or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been no tified to the consent authority

There are no draft local environmental plans in place at present that are or have been placed on public exhibition to date. Council, in conjunction with Ryde City Council, however, prepared and adopted a Masterplan following community consultation. Following this step, Council has resolved to prepare a draft local environmental plan and a draft Development Control Plan which will amend the principal plan by way of substantially altered height controls, floor space ratios and minimum lot sizes which relate to the General Business 3(a) zone. Detailed control is set out in the relevant draft Development Control Plan. It must be stated here that it is considered that the gazettal of the draft Gladesville LEP at this point of time is still not ‘imminent’ in that the draft LEP has not yet been exhibited. Therefore, little weight can placed on the likely future changes to the controls based on the adopted Masterplan for Gladesville. 8.4 S.79C(1)(a)(iii) Any Development Control Pla n

Development Control Plan No 21 – Commercial Development This is the policy that applies to all development within Business Zones including “shop-top” housing. The purpose of the plan is to provide more detailed planning and building controls than are available in LEP No.1 (as amended). The aims of the plan as outlined in DCP No. 21 are as follows: • provide a high standard of innovative architectural and landscape design that fits

into the context of, and is sensitive to, the existing surrounding locality particularly any adjoining residential or open space areas, and that enhances Hunter’s Hill environmental integrity

• provide greater housing choice and high standard of design in commercial areas; • provide housing that is affordable, environmentally friendly, attractive, and enjoyable

for people to live in; • ensure optimum use of existing social, transport and other infrastructure by

encouraging development close to existing infrastructure, lessening the need for motor vehicle trips, and encouraging pedestrian and bicycle mobility;

• maintain the viability of business centres by encouraging a mix of land uses within existing business zones

As a site specific policy, DCP No.22 which specifically relates to the Cowell Street area, would override DCP No.21 insofar as it relates to the subject site. However, the following provisions of DCP No.21 still apply:

1. Site Layout - Objectives/ Design Requirements The site analysis drawing provides sufficient details. Refer to compliance against SEPP 65.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D51


2. Streetscape - Objectives/ Design Requirements Sufficient analysis and information on the streetscape context is provided to demonstrate compliance with the objectives and design requirements. 3. Height - Objectives/ Design Requirements The DCP limits the height of buildings to 3 storeys and 9 metres height from ground to uppermost ceiling. The proposal provides for 5 storeys with a maximum ceiling height of approximately 16 metres. This issue is addressed in detail in the report, however, where there is inconsistency, the provisions of DCP 22 which are site specific and adopted later, should prevail along with LEP No.1. 4. Setbacks – Objectives/ Design Requirements The proposal provides substantial setbacks well in excess of that required by DCP 21. 5. Density - Objectives/ Design Requirements The DCP stipulates that 50% of the ground floor shall be provided as commercial or retails use. The maximum residential density shall be one dwelling per 75sqm of site area. The DCP also provides for this standard to be “varied on merit having regard to the existing and desired future character of the area as may be contained in any adopted Urban Design Study or Environmental Enhancement Plan. Incentives may also be given where the proposal provides positive public benefits.” For the site area of 2322m2, the maximum number of units in accordance with the density provisions of clause 5 would be 3; the development would now provide for 38 units, which is non-compliant. The proposal provides 72% of the ground floor as commercial / retail space while the DCP requires a minimum of 50%. 6. Landscaping - Objectives/ Design Requirements The Design requirements of DCP 21 require a minimum of 20% of the site area to be landscaped open space or 20m2 of landscaped area per dwelling, whichever is greater. The proposal does not comply with the overall landscaped area. 7. Private Open Space - Objectives/ Design Requirem ents As requested by Council a detailed shadow analysis has been submitted which confirms that the majority of units receive the required amount of sunlight. 8. Solar Design and Energy Efficiency - Objectiv es/ Design Requirements Development shall ensure that living room of any existing adjoining dwelling receives a minimum of 2 hours solar access between 9am and 3pm of the winter solstice and that development should not overshadow more than one third of existing adjoining outdoor living space. This issue is discussed in detail under the heading of Neighbour notification. Each dwelling is designed so that principal living areas and private open space areas face north to maximise solar access and usage. All units are capable of receiving a minimum of three (3) hours of sunlight to private open space areas and internal living areas. In this regard the building performs well in terms of internal solar amenity to occupants.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D52


9. Heritage – Objectives/ General/ Design Requireme nts This issue was resolved with the original proposal to redevelop this site. 10. Privacy – Objective/ Design Requirements This issue is discussed in detail under the heading of Neighbour notification and is satisfactory in terms of the objectives and design requirements. 11. Safety & Security – Objectives/ Design Requir ements The building is designed so as to allow for casual surveillance of the street, adjoining carpark and curtilage of the building. Accessibility between units via roofs and balconies etc is limited. The proposal provides a diversity of complimentary land uses encouraging presence at different times of the day. Visitor entry is controlled by way of an electronic video surveillance/intercom system. The residential and commercial carparking areas are appropriately separated by way of electronic roller shutter. The lift is also controlled to prevent retail/commercial users entering the residential areas of the development. The proposal is satisfactory in terms of the objectives and design requirements. 12. Site Facilities – Objectives/ Design Requiremen ts

The proposal has been assessed by the Public Works and Infrastructure Department who have assessed this element and advised that the drainage requirements of the original development consent still apply notwithstanding this new application. 13. Services – Objectives/ Design Requ irements Appropriate provision of services (such as water, electricity, gas, telephone etc) are available to serve the development.

Development Control Plan No. 22 – Cowell Street On 27th August 2001, Hunter’s Hill Council adopted a site specific Development Control Plan (DCP), Urban Design Guidelines and Landscape Masterplan for Cowell Street, Gladesville, Retail and Commercial Precinct. The DCP for Cowell Street, Gladesville, Retail & Commercial Precinct is a site specific DCP that applies to 2-6 Cowell Street (Site 1) and 3-7 Cowell Street (Site 2) Gladesville, and to all the sites/works identified within the adopted Master Plan. The relevant controls are assessed in the Development Control Table above, and it is concluded that the proposal is not satisfactory in terms of numerical controls and performance objectives.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D53


Clause 2 - Introduction of the DCP for cowell stree t, gladesville,retail & commercial precinct states that it “ presents a unique opportunity to improve the standa rd and the quality of the public realm at gladesville,”.

The desired outcomes under development controls set out that the development in this part of Cowell Street are to be restricted to a ‘3-storey building above a semi basement car park with floors having set backs which vary according to the height of the building in order to protect the interest of adjoining residences’.

The design contravenes the detailed height controls of the DCP.

8.5 S.79C(1)(b) & (c) – the likely impacts of th at development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality. Suitability of the site for the development.

These matters were generally resolved with the original development approval for the site. 8.6 S.79C(1)(e) – the public interest The proposed development was notified to the adjoining neighbours and submissions are discussed below. The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest as a result of the major non-conformities associated with the design. 9. SUBMISSIONS

Following exhibition of the proposal on 30 May 2007 for a period of 30 working days, one (1) letter of objection were received from a nearby resident. A copy of the submission is attached.

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED Yes NUMBER NOTIFIED 42

Catherine Foley 11 Cowell Street, Gladesville

• Add more storeys to this building would render it totally out of place, unsightly

• Cause even greater parking and traffic issues than we already have

• Add more storeys to this building would render it t otally out of place,

unsightly Comment: This is a matter for consideration, more in relation to the draft LEP and DCP for the Gladesville area based on the adopted masterplan. These concerns would necessarily be addressed in detail under SEPP No.65 if Council were of a mind to agree by resolution to the S.82A review at this stage. • Cause even greater parking and traffic issues than we already have

Comment: The provision of sufficient off-street parking within the development to cater for the needs of the additional floor space will be such that there should be no demand for additional on-street parking. The matter of overall parking conditions and traffic generation are matters that would have formed the basis for the adopted masterplan and will obviously be addressed as part of the consideration of responses to the draft LEP and DCP after their exhibition.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D54


CONCLUSION It is considered that the gazettal of the draft Gladesville LEP at this point of time is still not ‘imminent’ in that the draft LEP has not yet been exhibited. Therefore, little weight can placed on the likely future changes to the controls based on the adopted Masterplan for Gladesville. The Council, as the consent authority, is not satisfied that the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height provisions under clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded. Having regard to the matters for consideration under Section 79c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, LEP No.1 (as amended), DCP No.21, DCP 22 for Cowell Street Gladesville Retail & Commercial Precinct and SEPP 65, the application is considered unsatisfactory and is recommended for refusal. The draft Planning Agreement as submitted with the application has not been processed due to the fact that the application is recommended for refusal. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates other than that as set out in the draft Planning Agreement which has not been processed as the application is recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. That the Council, as the consent authority, does not support the objection under

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height provisions under clause 15 of the Hunters Hill local Environmental Plan No.1.

B. That the review of determination under Section 82A of the Environmental; Planning

& Assessment Act of the decision to refuse the Development Application No.07/1060 for alterations and additions to the mixed development at Nos.3-7 Cowell Street, Gladesville, be confirmed based on the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 in relation to non-compliance with any development control plan, the detrimental impacts of that development, the non-suitability of the site and not in the public interest

2. The proposal fails to comply with the Height control under Clause 15(4) of

the Hunters Hill LEP No.1 3. The proposal fails to comply with Part 2, being ‘Streetscape’ under Hunters

Hill DCP No.21.

4. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 3, being ‘Height’ under Hunters Hill DCP No.21.

5. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 6, being

‘Landscaping’ under Hunters Hill DCP No.21.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D55


6. The proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Part 8, being ‘Access and parking’ under Hunters Hill DCP No.21

7. The proposal fails to comply with the height requirements of Hunters Hill

DCP No.22 – Cowell Street Gladesville . 8. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent and would undermine

Council’s planning objectives in relation to the draft Gladesville LEP and DCP.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Plans 3. SEPP No.1 objection 4. Submission


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D56


ITEM NO : 6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 2007/1140-1 PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING & ERECTION

OF A NEW TWO (2) STOREY DWELLING, GARAGE AND SWIMMING POOL – S.96 APPLICATION

PROPERTY : 39 BONNEFIN ROAD, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : DAVID SELDEN PTY LTD OWNER : SUZAN GRIFFIN DATE LODGED : 18 OCTOBER 2007 & 18 FEBRUARY 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1085/39 & DA07/1140 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal is to modify a development approval as granted by Council for demolition of the existing cottage and the erection of a new dwelling house.

Submissions

Council received no letters of objection during the notification period.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval because it:

1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties

and, as such, is justified.

2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a part two-storey and part single-storey dwelling with detached double garage to the front with a large eave overhang. A swimming pool will be constructed in the rear yard and there will be tree removal, landscaping and a 1.2 metres high steel flatbar welded fence with gates to be erected setback in from the street alignment.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D57


The proposed modification under this S.96(1A) application is to provide for the following:- • Extend the garage by 1.6 metres closer to the street resulting in a setback ranging

from 8.5m to 10.0m • an internal lift connecting the garage and the bedroom area on the next level below

to be provided in the garage area • provide a storage room in the rear northern corner of the garage • conversion and widening of the storage area beneath the garage to be used for a

bedroom with an ensuite and walk-in robe plus a small storage area and a small open terrace to the rear

• create a covered way 2.2 metres wide between the rear of the new level 1 bedroom and the new hallway into bedroom 2

• convert the level 1 bathroom into a new hallway and linen store 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as 39 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill, and is legally described as Lot 5 DP 19907. It is located on the north-east side between Ryde Road and Martin Street. The site is generally regular in shape with a frontage of 12.575 metres, a depth of 90.07 metres and a site area of 1,806sqm. It has frontage to Lane Cove River. The site slopes down from the front to the river with a fall of approximately 22 metres. Currently standing on the subject site is a single storey and part two-storey brick / tile dwelling house with an attached garage to the side. The site is bounded by a part single-storey part two- storey brick residence on the north side and a part single-storey part two storey rendered brick and metal roofed duplex to the south.

The site is not heritage listed and is not located within a conservation area. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

On 29 December 2006, the Land & Environment Court dismissed the appeal in relation to subdivision and the construction of two new dwellings on the site and in doing so considered a report from the Court’s expert in relation to arboricultural issues, which resulted in the tree loss being a major determinant in the decision. A preliminary consultation meeting was held for the subject development on 6 June 2007 at which the previous Court judgement was referred to and other matters such as effects on the foreshore, garden area, height, location of garages and setbacks. Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 25 February 2008, (DA 07-1140) resolved to approve the development application for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new two-storey dwelling with garage, front fence, swimming pool and landscaping, subject to conditions. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D58


SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: Yes Development Control Plan: No.15 Residential Development Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No.31 Bonnefin Road Bushfire Prone: Yes Integrated Development: Yes (NSW Rural Fire Service) 6. POLICY CONTROLS

Development Control Plan No.15 7. REFERRALS


The application was referred to the NSW Rural Fire Services who raised no objections to the original application subject to conditions. 7.2 Health & Building


As stated within the body of the report, the property is in the vicinity of a schedule 6 item under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The S.96 application was not referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor as the changes would not be visible from the public realm. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The proposal was referred to Council’s Engineer who raised no objection to the current changes proposed. 7.5 Parks & Landscape

The proposal was not referred to Council’s consultant Landscape Architect as the changes did not affect the landscaping of the site 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are covered below. This proposal is assessed under Section 96(1A) of the Act as the potential impact must be assessed.

The provisions of s.96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, require Council to be satisfied that the development to which consent as modified relates is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

It is considered that the development to which the consent, as proposed to be modified, relates is substantially the same development. The modifications relate to the original approved works


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D59


and are not considered to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents of the adjoining properties. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION

9.1 State Environmental Planning Polici es (SEPPs)

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Developm ent Standards There is no application of SEPP No.1 in relation to the proposed changes.

State Environmental Planning Policy No 19 -- Bushla nd in Urban Areas

The land is zoned 2(a1) Residential and the SEPP applies. It is noted that the subject site falls within the area covered by SEPP 19. This policy also contains a number of objectives relating to development near bushland in urban areas. The S.96 modification requested will not have any effect on the local bushland. 9.2 Regional Environment Plans (REPs)

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows: Aims of plan











Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D60









Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters for consideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application: 25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:







The proposed modification works would be not be visible from the waterway and would thus satisfy the above aims of the policy and matters for consideration.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D61


9.3 Other Legislation

Not applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1


The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone 2(a1) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table



HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 61.4% 60% Yes


The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise mul ti-unit housing-density and garden

area controls

Not applicable.

10.5 Height of Buildings

There will be no change to the approved building height. 10.6 Garden Area

There will be no change to the garden area for the proposed changes. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable.

10.8 Foreshore Building Lines

The building works for proposed development are set back clear of the 15 metre foreshore building line.




Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D62



(e) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and (f) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the


The proposed changes to the approved development will not have any effect on the foreshore closest to the subject site; that is, it would not be visible from the waterway. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standar ds


No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs)

12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Contr ol Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/


HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

7.2m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 60% 61.4% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house West (Front) East (Rear) South (Side) North (Side)

Average street pattern 6m 1.5m 1.5m

8.7 metres to garage/store 15 metres to dwelling 50 metres 1.5 metres 1.5 metres

Yes Yes Yes Yes


The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development. Heritage Conservation Areas

Not applicable. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D63


Visually Prominent Sites


No change to height of building. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

The closest part of the approved building will not project closer to the side boundaries for this proposal. Garden Area

No change proposed. Solar Access

No change to the solar access for adjoining premises. Privacy

The proposed alterations will not detrimentally affect the privacy of adjoining residents. Views

The proposed works will not detrimentally affect views of adjoining and nearby residents.

Car Parking

Two off-street car parking spaces will be maintained within the garage. Additional to that, there will remain the open area for two cars to be parked in the open between the front vehicular gates and the garage doors in its relocated position. Garages and Carports

Carparking is provided for the proposed dwelling in the form of a double garage located at ground level, with access to Bonnefin Road. The carparking facilities of the proposed dwelling have been designed to appear as an integrated feature of the overall design. The flat roofed double garage would be barely visible from the street due to the new fence setback behind the street alignment. The proposed double garage is setback 820mm from the front wall of the proposed dwelling, with an eave overhang, providing for shadows over the garage and reducing bulk and scale. The garage would have a setback of between 8.5 metres and 10.0 metres from the front street boundary. The proposed double garage to Bonnefin Road would have a low visual impact, as the site slopes down from the street (approximately 1.1m to the front of the garage), there is a large setback from the street, it will be behind a front fence and the garage door will be painted in a dark and recessive colour. The proposed driveway width varies from 3 metres to 5.2 metres, with planting between the side boundary and the nearer section of the driveway.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D64


Therefore, the proposal would satisfy the planning policy objectives outlined under Part 7 and 8 of the DCP No.15. Fences

There are no changes proposed to the approved front fence for the premises. 12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Not applicable. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposed amendments are considered such that they will not have a detrimental effect on the Bonnefin Road streetscape nor on the amenity of the adjoining and nearby residents of the locality. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and future built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 19 May 2008. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed modification is considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the residents of adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed amendments will result in substantially the same development, which has been previously approved. It is therefore considered acceptable which would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and, accordingly, the modification sought under S.96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION That pursuant to Section 96 (1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Development Application No.07/1140-1 for the modifications to the approved development application for the demolition and the construction of a new two-storey dwelling with garage, swimming pool and fence at No.39 Bonnefin Road, Hunters Hill be approved and condition No.1 of the consent be amended as follows:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D65


1. The development being carried out in accordance with the plans as prepared by David Selden Pty Ltd Drawing Nos. S96.01 to S96.10 dated April 2008 as received by council on 8 May 2008 and drawing Nos. DA.11 & DA.12 dated October 2007 as received by Council on 18 October 2007 and the landscape plan prepared by Material drawing Nos. 07-0014-01 A to 04A dated 11 may 2007 as received by Council on 18 October 2007, except where amended by the conditions of this consent.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D66


ITEM NO : 7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 07/1079 PROPOSAL : INTEGRATED HOUSING & TORRENS TITLE SUBDIVISION

PROPERTY : 8A JOUBERT STREET, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : MR G ROUNIS C/O PLANNINGLINK PTY LTD OWNER : MR GEORGE ROUNIS DATE LODGED : 18 JUNE 2007 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : SHAHRAM ZADGAN FILE : 1375/8 & DA07/1079 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

This application was considered at Council’s meeting on 12 May 2008 where it was resolved to defer the proposal to the next possible Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow the applicants to redesign and reduce the overall size and density of the development so as to address:

1. Consistency with objectives of DCP 15 in regard to topography, impact on neighbouring residential amenity, impact on existing trees and vegetation.

2. Concerns about:

a) the proximity to the lower neighbouring property at 8 Pitt Street and safety of the proposed car spaces of Unit 2;

b) compliance with side boundary setbacks and;

c) adverse impacts on solar access of adjoining properties.

The applicant lodged amended plans with Council on 30 May 2008. On 3 June 2008, Council notified the application to the surrounding neighbours. The proposal results in seven (7) objections, received in response to the neighbour notification process. Issues

• Impacts from the height • Appearance of three (3) stories • Excessive bulk • Solar access to Unit No.2 • Impacts from the landscaping • Visual impacts • Proximity of terraces and west-facing living areas • Impacts of noise


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D67


• Loss of privacy • Excessive loss of trees that provide habitat and feeding for birds, including some

protected bird species. • Neither integrated, nor Torrens Title Subdivision should be considered for this site • Too many vehicles using the joint driveway • Over-development of the site • Impacts on solar access. • The subject allotment has a Right of Way of 2.7m in width, which is further

constrained in its width by overhanging eaves of the existing building at No.8 Joubert Street.

• Breach of the density controls. • Side setback non-compliances of the proposed carport. • Stormwater run-off and the impact the reduction of trees will have on water run off

and erosion. • Loss of water views towards Tarban Creek, due to the proposed garages and

carports. The subdivision application imposed condition 19 (c) that “a restriction on user be placed on title to ensure that no development is to be undertaken above 1.2 metres measured directly above the natural ground level….”

Objections

Seven (7) objections were received.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval because it:

1. is permissible under the zoning

2. complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15

3. is appropriate

4. will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties such is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The application seeks consent for the construction of a two (2) storey attached integrated housing development and Torrens Title subdivision. The design of the development is stepped and follows the slope of the allotment. The proposed development consists of the following: Entry Floor Level Entry foyer area, car parking with a single garage and carport provided for each dwelling. Upper Ground Floor Level Unit 1 Living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, laundry, bedroom and terrace. Unit 2


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D68


Living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and terrace. Lower Ground Floor Level Unit 1 Two (2) bedrooms, en-suite, bathroom and terrace. Unit 2 Three (3) bedrooms, en-suite, bathroom and terrace. Site Works Landscaping. Amended Plans The subject amended plans that are being assessed are issue H and dated 29 May 2008. These plans indicate the following changes: • The dwelling has been moved further closer to the boundary by 0.212m to increase

the southern side setback and also to maintain a minimum setback of 2m along the northern boundary in order to comply with the landscaped area requirements.

• The rear terrace to unit one (1) has been reduced to increase the rear setback from 9.986 metres to 10.884 metres.

• The front entry of the building has been reduced in length by 0.4m, to increase the view line from adjoining properties over the front of the site. The building will now provide a larger setback than what is required by the section 88B instrument applicable to the subject site.

• The carport provided for unit No.2, which was located on the southern side of the building, has been deleted. As such the development now provides a minimum southern side setback of 2m.

• A carparking space is located within the eastern (front) setback area. This car parking space is permitted within this restricted area as it does not provide a structure which exceeds 1.2m in height. This parking space will also be provided with porous paving and will be clearly distinguishable from the main driveway area, with a forward direction maneuvering.

• A safety balustrading fence has been provided adjacent to unit No.2 garage. • Additional detail regarding fencing and retaining walls along the southern boundary,

which is to be paid by the owner. This dividing fence is in response to the neighbouring property requesting a fence.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as No.8a Joubert Street, Hunters Hill, located on the western side of Joubert Street. The subject site is a battle axe allotment, as a result of DA05/1018 approved by Council for a two lot subdivision at 8 Joubert Street, Hunters Hill. The site has a front (eastern) boundary of 17.105m, a rear (western) boundary of 16.635m, side (north) boundary of 41.6m and a side (south) boundary of 41.48m. The total area of the subject site, excluding the access handle, is 700.8sqm. The site is rectangular in shape and has an east to west orientation. The subject site experiences a steep fall from the front boundary to the rear boundary with a fall of


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D69


approximately 12m along the length of the site. Located within the centre of the site is a rock ledge which generally splits the allotment into two main areas. The subject site is currently vacant as it was created by DA05/1018. The site is affected by an easement located along the northern front boundary, which restricts development within this easement to ensure a suitable view corridor is maintained for the northern surrounding properties. Consent condition No.19 (c) of Development Application 2005/1018, imposes a restricted zone of development, being 8.53m setback from the eastern boundary of the site with no development being undertaken above 1.2m measured directly above the existing natural ground level unless it is a boundary wall. Access to the subject site is provided along the northern boundary of the adjoining eastern property, which was the original allotment prior to the subdivision works. The subject site is benefited by a drainage easement along the southern boundary of 8 Joubert Street. The subject site is not located within the Conservation area, but adjoins the property at No.8 Joubert Street, which is a listed Contributory Item under Schedule 7 of LEP No.1. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

• On 3 February 2005, Development Application 2005/1018 was lodged with Council for a two lot subdivision at 8 Joubert Street, Hunters Hill. This application was approved by Council at it’s meeting of 10 October 2005, subject to conditions.

• On 18 June 2007, the subject application was lodged with Council. • On 21 June 2007, the subject application was notified to the surround properties. In

response to the neighbour notification process, Council received several submissions.

• On 20 July 2007, Council sent the applicant a letter advising of a number of issues. • On 5 September 2007, a conciliation conference was held at Council’s Chambers,

between the objectors and the applicant to address the issues. A copy of the conciliation conference minutes has been attached to this report.

The applicant’s consultant provided the following comments: • The trees to be removed are permissible under the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) • Will speak to the owners of No.2 and 4 Pitt Street to resolve issues • Access handle (driveway) approved by Council • Privacy impacts to the rear of the site would be addressed through additional

landscaping • The visual bulk of the building will be addressed by lowering of the floor levels and

the undercroft area • Will amend and prepare a better and informative site analysis plan • Will have a look at the allocation of private open spaces for the units • The distance separation to the rear is more than the required 6m control • The proposed building has been designed to be stepped • The proposal technically complies with Council’s numerical controls, but due to the

topography of the land the proposed building appears bulky. We will try to lower the floor levels to reduce the bulky appearance.

• Tree protection measures during construction and demolition will be addressed by Council imposed standard conditions and procedures


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D70


• The proposal complies with current controls, thus the proposal would not be setting a precedence

• The proposal complies with the Australian Standards, which are more strict than Council’s controls.

• Geotechnical assessment and reports will be provided in response to Development Application conditions

• The non-numerical controls that are breached can be assessed on their merits • A copy of the 88B instrument will be provided to Mr Rumble and Mr Pellegrino • He clearly stated that he was not involved with the subdivision application • The current LEP does permit dual occupancy (integrated development)

development on the site. He clearly stated that they cannot do a single dwelling as previously suggested by the objectors.

• Will amend architectural plans, landscape plans, address bulk/scale issues and appearance of the building

Conclusion

SK stated that from the discussions and issues raised above, the applicant will be amending the architectural plans and landscape plans with supporting information/documentation, which will be re-notified to all the surrounding properties for a period of 10 working days. Following the exhibition period, all submissions will be considered to form part of the report for Council’s consideration and a copy of Council’s conciliation minutes would be posted to all attendees and will form part of Council’s report. • On 5 October 2007, Council received amended plans. • On 10 October 2007, the amended plans were notified to the surround properties. In

response to the neighbour notification process, Council received several submissions.

• On 4 December 2007, Council sent the applicant a letter advising of a number of

issues. • On 19 February 2008, Council received further amended plans. • On 26 February 2008, the amended plans were re-notified to the surrounding

properties. In response to the neighbour notification process, Council received several submissions. It is these plans which are the subject to this report.

• This application was considered at Council’s meeting on 28 April 2008 where it was

resolved to defer the proposal to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 May 2008 to allow the applicants to erect height poles at the critical corner points on the proposed development.

• This application was considered at Council’s meeting on 12 May 2008 where it was resolved to defer the proposal to the next possible Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow the applicants to redesign and reduce the overall size and density of the development so as to address:

1. Consistency with objectives of DCP 15 in regard to topography, impact on neighbouring residential amenity, impact on existing trees and vegetation.

2. Concerns about:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D71


a) the proximity to the lower neighbouring property at 8 Pitt Street and safety of the proposed car spaces of Unit 2;

b) compliance with side boundary setbacks and;

c) adverse impacts on solar access of adjoining properties.

• The applicant lodged amended plans with Council on 30 May 2008. On 3 June 2008, Council notified the application to the surrounding neighbours. The proposal results in seven (7) objections, received in response to the neighbour notification process.

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: Yes Development Control Plan: No.15 & 17 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS

Residential Development Control Plan No.15 and Residential Subdivision Development Control Plan No.17. 7. REFERRALS


Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building


The amended plans were not required to be referred to the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) as the amendments are not considered to be substantial. Thus, the previous comments provided should still be considered. The application was forwarded to the Conservation Advisory Panel (CAP) meeting of 19 December 2007. The minutes for this item are as follows:-

The Panel reviewed the design and reiterated that there were no perceived heritage and conservation impacts per se arising from the proposal.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D72


The current amended plans did not require to be forwarded to the CAP, as the plans have reduced the size of the proposal. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer who provided the following comments:

Prior to issue of Construction Certificate these issues are to be addressed:

• Plan submitted indicating size and location of absorption trenching on the subject allotment (for driveway drainage) within easement for drainage (B) on DP 1107265. If this is to be disturbed during development an alternative is to be provided by the applicant.

• Stormwater Management Plan for excavation and construction phase to be

submitted. To include settling pond, filtration and pumpout for de-watering of site and method of preventing concentrated flows from causing nuisance flooding and silt on downstream properties.

• Stormwater infrastructure in the approved plan, which is to be located below ground and outside the building envelope to be constructed, and a work-as-executed plan provided to Council for approval. On completion of roof, downpipes and lines being connected to the system, and all made operational, in accordance with approved stormwater plans.

These details to be submitted to Principal Certifying Authority for approval and a copy made available to Council for this Development Application

7.5 Parks & Landscape

The amended plans were referred to Council’s Landscape Advisor who considered that the amendments are minor and would not result in a significant change in the landscaping of the site. Thus, the previous comments provided should still be considered. The application was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator who provided the following comments:

I have looked at the proposal in association with Council’s Landscape Consultant from JCA. The proposal had the dwelling situated almost hard up against the trunk of the Blue Gum and basically at grade. This would not work. This has since been changed partly because Council required the dwelling to be lowered. This will clearly compromise the integrity of the tree. There was discussion about moving the building further away and further down the slope, however this is still no guarantee that the roots would not be cut as it would be right at the limit of the critical rootzone and another tree, a Cheese tree would have to be removed. The other problem with retaining the Blue Gum is that Council approved the proposed footprint, which shows the building almost hard up against the tree. In my experience retaining a Blue Gum this close to a dwelling will result in branches breaking off and damaging the dwelling (as Blue Gums do) An application to remove the tree will inevitably follow.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D73


I would estimate the tree is approximately 30 to 35 years old and it is my opinion that the best option, on balance is to allow removal of the tree and to condition that two replacement canopy trees are located in suitable locations on the allotment. Two replacement trees, an Angophora floribunda and an Angophora costata in a minimum 100 litre container size be located on the lower part of the site. A bond to be placed on the trees of $5000 refundable after two years pending their successful establishment.

The application was also referred to Council’s Landscape Consultant (JCA) who provided the following comments:

An onsite meeting was held, on the 11th February 2008, to discuss concerns relating to screening and the retention of a Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). The meeting was attending by myself, Councils Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator Phil Sutton, the client George Rounis, a representative of Context Landscape Architect and a representative of Tree Wise Men. Subsequent to that meeting an amended Landscape Plan (prepared by Context Landscape Architect, dwg no L-07567-01, date stamped 20th Feb 08) has been received and reviewed as part of this report. Phil Sutton has submitted a separate report relating to the Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) and his comments should form part of the conditions of consent for this development application. • Further to my recommendation, additional screening planting of Syzygium

australe ‘Select Form’ has been incorporated along the western boundary. The proposed additional screening, in combination with retained vegetation should adequately address privacy and visual amenity concerns.

• The amended Landscape Plan has proposed two Glochidion ferdinandi

(Cheese Trees) as replacement trees for the Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). Further, to Phil Sutton’s recommendation, this should be changed to one Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) and one Angophora floribunda (Rough Barked Apple).

Recommendation Approve this DA with regards to landscape issues subject to the following

conditions:-

• Councils Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator Phil Sutton’s comments relating to the removal of the Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) should form part of the conditions of consent for this development application. It has been recommended by Phil Sutton, that two replacement trees, an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) and Angophora floribunda (Rough Barked Apple) be incorporated into the landscape works. These replacement trees should be supplied as 100 litre stock. Phil Sutton has also recommended that a bond of $5,000 be placed on the trees for a period of two years and be refundable pending their successful establishment.

• The tree protection measures outlined in the previously submitted Arborist

Report (prepared by Tree Wise Men Australia Pty Ltd, date stamped 14th


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D74


August 2007) form part of the conditions of consent for this development. It is essential that the recommended tree protection measures are implemented to ensure the retained trees continue to grow and develop as important landscape components, providing long term amenity for the subject site and its owners or occupants, and the local community.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION


Not applicable. 9.2 Regional Environment Plans (REPs)

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows: Aims of plan












Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D75








Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters for consideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevan t to this application: 25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality

The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:







The proposal would not be overly visible from the waterway and would satisfy the above aims of the policy. Those of particular relevance pertaining to the appearance of the development from the waterway and foreshore, heritage issues and requiring the protection and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the Harbour, have been satisfactorily addressed by the proposal.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D76


9.3 Other Legislation






HEIGHT Ceiling

6.6 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 51% 50% Yes


Restrictions on subdivision The proposed application seeks consent for Torrens Title subdivision. However, Clause No.10 – Restriction on Subdivisions of LEP No.1 does not specify the minimum subdivision control that applies to land within Zone 2(a1). Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposed Torrens Title subdivision of the existing hatched shaped allotment would create a blind allotment (Unit No.2), which would not have frontage to public land and would have to rely on the right of way of Unit No.1. Council does not support the creation of an allotment, from an existing hatched shaped allotment, that does not provide its own frontage and access. Furthermore to this assessment no detailed documentation or plans has been provided to assist in a detailed assessment of this application for subdivision. Therefore, a condition will be imposed that the proposed Torrens Title subdivision does not form part of this consent. Minimum size for certain allotments The total area of the subject site, excluding the access handle, is 700.8sqm. The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of Clause 12 of LEP No.1, which states that

12. (1) person shall not erect a dwelling-house on an allotment of land –

(a) within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(b) or 2(c), if the allotment has an area of less than 700 square metres; or

(b) ithin Zone No. 2(a2), if the allotment has an area of less than 900 square metres; or

(c) ithin Zone No. 2(a3), if the allotment has an area of less than 1000 square metres.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D77


(2) Deleted. (LEP 22) (3) Deleted. (LEP 31) (4) Deleted. (LEP 31)

(5) Nothing in this clause shall operate to prohibit the erection of a

dwelling house within Zone No. 2(a1), 2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b) or 2(c) on an allotment of land which has the same boundaries as it had on the appointed day.

10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise mul ti-unit housing-density and garden

area controls

Not applicable.

10.5 Height of Buildings

The height of the proposal, being 6.6 metres and 2 storey in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 states that:

15. (1) In this clause “ground level” , in relation to the carrying out of development on a site, means the level of the site immediately before the development is carried out.

(2) A person shall not erect a building on a site within Zone No. 2(a1),

2(a2), 2(a3), 2(b), 2(c), or 5(a):

(a) containing more than 2 storeys; or (b) having a height greater than 7.2 metres measured

vertically from ground level to the uppermost ceiling, or both.

Accordingly, the height of the proposed building has been measured from the existing ground level and not from the (below ground level) excavated areas. 10.6 Garden Area

The proposed revised garden area of 51% would be above the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

The proposal having a site area of 700.8sqm (excluding the access handle) would comply with the 700sqm area requirement in which two (2) new attached dwelling-houses can be erected, under Clause 17A (1) (a) of LEP No.1. The proposal indicates a single garage and adjoining carport for each of the proposed attached dwellings. The proposed development would provide two individual attached dwellings with a total floor area of more than 125sqm. Clause 17A(2) (d) requires that two (2) car parking spaces


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D78


be provided for each dwelling having a gross floor area exceeding 125sqm. Thus, the proposal complies with the above controls. The proposal complies in respect to privacy and solar access, as detailed within the body of this report. Thus, the proposal complies with Clause 17A(3) requirements. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the application in regards to stormwater discharge and considers the proposal to be satisfactory, subject to conditions. Also, standard conditions have been imposed in relation to provision of water supply and disposal of sewage to each dwelling. 10.8 Foreshore Building Lines

Not applicable.




(a) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and (b) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the


It is considered that the proposed development would not be overly visible from the waterway and accordingly would not affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standar ds


No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS (DCPs)

12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Contr ol Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/


HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2m

6.6m

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 51% Yes


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D79


BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house East (Front) West (Rear) North (Side) South (Side)

Average street pattern restricted zone 8.53m 6m 1.5m 1.5m

8.9m 8.9m 10.8m 2.0m 0.288mm 2.36m -2.56m

Yes Yes Yes Yes No (carport – exemptions apply) Yes

MINIMUM ALLOTMENT SIZE 700sqm 700.8qm Yes INTEGRATED HOUSING DEVELOPMENT

700sqm 700.8sqm Yes

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 80sqm Dwelling 8A U1 – 98.8sqm

Yes

80sqm Dwelling 8A U2–111.64sqm

Yes

FSR 0.5:1 0.48:1 Yes Housing Density 120sqm per bedroom 6 bedrooms No

Purpose of Development Control Plan The proposal complies with Clause 1.2 of DCP No.15 in that the proposal is appropriate for the subject site and as such would perform well as “good neighbours”, (respect the distinctive character and heritage of the Municipality) and maintains appropriate vegetative cover (refer to the heading of Referrals – Parks and Landscape. The objectives of the DCP generally refer to maintaining the landscape character of Hunters Hill and the natural environment and ensuring that the character and scale of the development is compatible with the locality and in particular, with development in the immediate vicinity when viewed from the street and other public places. It is considered that the proposal would provide adequate amount of landscaping compatible and similar to the surrounding properties. Character of Hunters Hill The proposal complies with Clause 2.2 of DCP No.15 in that the proposal is appropriate in terms of bulk and scale and character, and conforms to the urban form characteristics of the Municipality. The proposal has the appearance of two (2) habitable storeys and would be not be readily visible from the waterway, the site is set back amongst vegetative planting, which will be compatible with the foreshore and character of Hunters Hill in this locality. The proposal complies with Clause 2.2.2 of DCP No.15 urban form characteristics in relation to scale in that generally buildings in the Municipality are no higher than a large two storey house. Planning Policy – All Development

Development Control Plan No 15 – Residential Development is the policy that applies to residential development. The purpose of the plan is to provide more detailed planning and building controls than are available in LEP No.1 (as amended).


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D80


One of the functions of DCP No.15 is to establish parameters for the assessment of amenity issues such as privacy, solar access, preservation of views and car parking. The objectives as outlined in DCP No. 15 are as follows: a. Development should be compatible with the landscape character of the area.

Generally the landscape character of Hunters Hill is encapsulated in the “tree” whether indigenous, native or exotic. Hunter’s Hill Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the area’s landscape character and natural environment.

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public place should be compatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the site and residential development in the immediate vicinity.

c. Development, particularly when viewed from public reserves, National Parks, waterways or across valleys should not be obtrusive in or upon the natural landscape.

d. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity, additions and new development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.

The subject vacant allotment has existing dense vegetation cover, which as part of the proposal would be partially removed to accommodate the footprint of the proposed dwellings and associated parking. However, the proposal would provide new planting, which on balance would be comparable or similar in its share to the other surrounding properties. It should be noted that with any new development it is to be expected that there would be a requirement for partial removal of existing vegetation. Accordingly, the proposal would be compatible in regards of its scale with the character of Hunters Hill, not being obtrusive upon the natural landscape and compatible in style/architecture, identity and designed in sympathy with its surroundings. The proposed Landscaping, subject to conditioning, would be compatible with the landscape character of the area. Design Parameters The proposal satisfies the design parameters as set out in Part 3.2 of the DCP.

(a) Development should ensure that the size and shape of development, the extent of cut and fill, the type and colour of building materials, the design of roofs (in terms of materials, colour, pitch, etc) and the amount and type of landscaping, are:

(i) Compatible with the character and scale of surrounding residential development; and

(ii) Do not intrude or otherwise impact upon the natural landscape, particularly on ridge top locations and adjoining public places.

(b) Each property should provide its share of appropriate vegetative cover, as well as protection and retention of native vegetation and wildlife habitat on site. It should be noted that street tree planting (eg. On nature strips) is controlled by Council. Applicants should not seek to rely on landscaping in Council’s reserve or on adjacent properties to screen adverse visual impact of development sites.

The bulk, scale, design and landscaping of the proposal is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D81


• The proposed design of the development respects the existing topography of the allotment, it is stepped and follows the slope of the allotment.

• The height of the proposal complies with Clause 15 – Height of LEP No.1.

• The proposed design attempts to break up long lines of walls and provides variations elevations. Thus, the bulk and scale of the proposal is considered to be acceptable for an attached dual occupancy residence.

• The proposal provides adequate landscaping comparable or similar in density to the other surrounding properties, in particular the rear garden of the allotment.

• The proposal would not impact upon the natural landscaping or upon the existing and desired landscape character and natural environment of Hunters Hill, as the proposal is providing over 50% garden area for the allotment, which satisfies the aims/ objectives and numerical requirements of DCP No.15 and Clause No.16A – Garden Area of LEP No.1.

Preferred Design Elements

The proposal satisfies the requirements of Part 3.3 being Preferred Design Elements, under Hunters Hill DCP No.15, which states:

a. New residential development should reflect the scale, bulk and character of development in the vicinity;

b. Architectural relief and modulation of facades to avoid a bulky appearance; c. The design of buildings should attempt to break up long lines of walls through

variations in elevations to provide visual interest to buildings and opportunities for the provision of landscaping to minimise the visual impact of large expanses of walls;

d. The roof of the building should be designed so it does not unduly increase the bulk

of the buildings. Attention should be paid to materials, colour and roof pitch. Only under exceptional circumstances will flat roof buildings be considered;

There should be architectural unity in the design of alterations and/or additions to

existing dwellings/dwelling-houses and wherever possible external finishes of building work should match and be in character with the existing building/s on the site (exemptions may apply to heritage buildings);

e. Excessive areas of glazing on street and waterfront elevations (“walls of glass”) will

not be supported within the conservation area, or vicinity of a heritage item. Windows and openings should have a vertical emphasis and be significantly less in proportion to solid massing i.e windows in walls.;

f. The minimisation of hard surfaces;

g. Retention of the natural landform and vegetation

h. The bulk, scale, design, colour, materials and appearance of the development is in character with the residential development in the vicinity.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D82


The proposed building provides architectural relief and attempts to break up long lines of walls and provides variation in elevations. The proposed roof is considered to be low profile and unobtrusive.

The proposed treatment of the garden for new dwellings, subject to conditioning, is considered to be satisfactory. Heritage Conservation Areas

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives under Part 4 of Development Control Plan No.15. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Refer to section 10.9 of this report ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’. Visually Prominent Sites


Refer to section 10.5 of this report ‘Height of Buildings’. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

The northern side setback (288mm) non-compliance is due to the proposed carport for Unit No.1. However, it should be noted that part 7.2.3 of DCP No.15 allows for concessions for single storey structures such as carports, subject to satisfying the objectives of this clause, which are solar access and privacy. In this case, the proposed carport would not impact on the adjoining property in terms of privacy or solar access. The site is affected by an easement located along the northern front boundary, which restricts development within this easement to ensure a suitable corridor is maintained for the northern surrounding properties. Consent condition No.19 (c) of Development Application 2005/1018, imposes a restricted zone of development, being 8.53m setback from the eastern boundary of the site with no development being undertaken above 1.2m measured directly above the existing natural ground level unless it is a boundary wall. The entry floor plan has been amended, which indicates that the building would be 8.9m setback from the eastern boundary, which would satisfy consent condition No.19 (c) of Development Application 2005/1018 Notwithstanding the numerical non-compliances, it is considered that the proposal has been assessed against the objectives under Part 7.2 of the DCP No.15 (following characteristic pattern of setbacks for locality, sunlight, privacy, views and streetscape, as has been assessed within the body of the report) and is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives as there would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining properties. Garden Area

Refer to section 10.6 of this report ‘Garden Area’. Part 7.3.6 of the DCP No.15, requires that the cut and fill for any development of the site shall generally be limited to a maximum vertical height of 1metre at any point and a maximum vertical height of 1.5metres. The proposal indicates the development excavating to a greater extent than the maximum requirement.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D83


Notwithstanding the non-compliance it is considered the extent of the excavation and fill is acceptable, as it is not considered to be unreasonable nor excessive within the context of the site, with the existing site sloping approximately 12m -13m from the front to the rear. It should be noted that the applicant would be required to submit geo-technical and dilapidation reports ensuring that the excavation takes place in accordance with the relevant measures recommended. Solar Access

Amended shadow diagrams have not been submitted as part of the amended proposal. It should be noted that the amended proposal has deleted the carport for Unit No.2 on the southern side and moved the building further to the north by 0.212m to increase the southern side setback. Although the changes are minor, the proposed shadows cast would be less than those indicated within the shadow diagrams previously assessed by Council (drawing prepared by Urban Link, No.E-05, issue E, dated 4 February 2008). Therefore, the comments of the previous report in relation to solar access should still be considered. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 9am mid winter, the shadows are cast to the south-west of the subject site and onto the adjoining properties, being No.’s 8 and10 Pitt Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 12 noon mid winter there would be shadows cast south of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 Pitt Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The shadow diagrams indicate that at 3pm mid winter there would be shadows cast south-east of the subject site and onto the adjoining property, being No.8 Pitt Street and No.6 Joubert Street. The shadowing would affect less than 33% of the site. The proposal would comply with the general requirements, being that new development must not eliminate more than one third of the existing sunlight to adjacent properties at ground level, measured at 9 am, 12 noon and 3 pm of the winter solstice. It should be noted that the extent of the overshadowing to No.8 Pitt Street is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. The proposal would comply with the general requirements and objectives stipulated under Part 7.4.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15, as the proposal would allow for reasonable access to sunlight to adjoining buildings and their recreational open space. Privacy

Northern Elevation It is considered that privacy impacts would not eventuate as a result of the northern elevation of the proposed Unit No.1, due to the windows from this elevation being from bedrooms, which are considered to be low trafficable rooms. Also, the northern elevation of Unit No.1 would be overlooking the rear garden of No.10 Joubert Street. Southern Elevation It is considered that privacy impacts would not eventuate as a result of the southern elevation of the proposed Unit No.2, due to the limited number of windows, orientation, high sill windows and window openings from low trafficable rooms (bedroom).


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D84


Eastern Elevation It is considered that privacy impacts would not eventuate as a result of the eastern elevation of the proposed Units, as this elevation is the entry and accommodates the carparking of the site. Western Elevation The amended plans indicate that the rear setback has been increased from approximately 10m to 10.8m. It is considered that privacy impacts would not eventuate as a result of the western elevation (rear) of the proposed Units, as there is sufficient setback separation of approximately 10.8m to the rear boundary of the subject allotment and greater distance separation from the proposed building to the rear neighbouring dwellings. This setback separation is considered to be sufficient in a residential urban area and would be similar or greater than other rear setbacks provided by other existing surrounding dwellings.

It is acknowledged that the allotment is a slopping site and that the rear properties on Pitt Street are on a lower level. However, notwithstanding the setback separation, the submitted landscape plan further protects the privacy of the western (rear) adjoining properties by providing a row of 12 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pill) trees, which grow 6-8m in height, along the western (rear) dividing boundary of the subject allotment. Views

The subject site is affected by an easement located along the northern front boundary, which restricts development within this easement to ensure a suitable view corridor is maintained for the northern surrounding properties. Consent condition No.19 (c) of Development Application 2005/1018, imposes a restricted zone of development, being 8.53m setback from the eastern boundary of the site with no development being undertaken above 1.2m measured directly above the existing natural ground level unless it is a boundary wall. The amended plans have amended the eastern (front) boundary setback to be 8.9m, which would comply with the restriction imposed by consent condition No.19 (c) of Development Application 2005/1018. When the proposed dwellings are viewed from the higher level adjoining northern properties, the entry level would be viewed as a single storey structure with an approximate height of 3.7m and the rest of the proposed dwellings stepped and set lower to follow the topography of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not significantly affect the existing views of the adjoining properties, as a result of the proposed building being stepped to follow the topography of the allotment and the easement affecting the subject site ensuring the existing views of the northern properties being maintained. The proposed integrated development in general, due to its positioning of window openings, stepped form, proposed finished floor levels and natural ground levels, separation of adjoining properties and orientation is considered to provide for the reasonable privacy of the adjoining dwellings and their outdoor spaces, accordingly, satisfying the objective stipulated under Part 7.5.1 of the Development Control Plan No.15.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D85


Car Parking

The subject site is a battle-axe allotment and is accessed by an existing right of carriageway and easement for services of 2.7m in width.

The proposal complies with Part 7.7.2(h) of the DCP, as four (4) car parking spaces have been provided for a gross floor area in excess of 125sqm. Garages and Carports

The proposed amended drawings indicate that the carport of Unit No.2 has been deleted and a hardstand carspace provided towards the south eastern corner of the allotment. The location of the proposed garages and carport for Unit No.1 and No.2 are considered to be satisfactory as they are not visible from the street, and do not adversely impact upon the existing streetscape. By reviewing the amended plans, it is considered that the garages and carports for residence No.1 and 2 do provide a satisfactory turning circle clearance. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed garages would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part 8 of the Development Control Plan No.15. Fences

The amended plans propose a dividing boundary fence to the southern side of the subject allotment constructed of a masonry base and timber on top, with a maximum height of 2m. With regards to dividing fence issues, as this is a civil matter between the adjoining parties. However, a condition will be imposed that the southern side boundary fence height is to be no greater than 1.8metres from adjacent ground level, so as to ensure compliance with Part 9 of DCP No.15.

The proposal indicates a timber paling fences to the boundaries and along the centre of the two (2) units. The height of the proposed fences are 1.8 metres. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended to impose a condition ensuring that the proposed fences are to be constructed in such a manner as to maintain privacy and amenity for the adjoining residents to a height no greater than 1.8metres, so as to ensure compliance with Part 9 of DCP No.15.

Part B – Medium Density Development

Part B2.1- Size of Allotments

The subject site being 700.8 square metres, complies with the minimum site area requirement of 700 square metres for attached dwelling houses. Part B2.2 – Housing Density

The proposal indicating three (3) bedrooms for Unit No.1 and three (3) bedrooms for Unit No.2, which would not comply with the one bedroom for each 120 square metres requirement, where the site area of the subject site is 700.8sqm. In order for the dwelling to contain 6 bedrooms the site requires an area 720sqm. This non-compliance (20sqm or 16.6%) is considered to be minor as the proposal complies with the majority of the controls and would not significantly affect the bulk and scale of the proposed building. It should be noted that the extent of the non-compliance (20sqm) is not sufficient to warrant the refusal of the application. The proposal indicating a floor space ratio of 0.48:1, would comply with the minimum 0.5:1 maximum floor space ratio requirement.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D86


The site is not located within the conservation area, thus the maximum gross floor area of 80sqm for a second dwelling does not apply to this assessment.

Part B2.3 – Site Considerations, Building Setbacks & Design

The proposal would have building walls sited and of a length that would ensure no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of adjacent dwellings, private open space and the streetscape.

Part B2.4 – Height and Scale

The proposal being limited to two storeys in height and having a height of 6.6 metres, complies with the requirements stipulated under Part 2.4.1 of DCP No.15.

B2.5 – Building Construction, Services and Material s

The proposal would comply with the intent of the objectives stipulated under Part B2.5 of DCP No.15.

B2.6 – Private Open Space

Both dwellings would have a garden area of greater than 80 square metres, of which at least 40 square metres are situated adjacent to the living rooms, and complying with Part 2.6.8 of DCP No.15. The proposed Units would provide the following garden areas:

• Dwelling 8A Unit No.1 – 98.8sqm

• Dwelling 8A Unit No.2 –111.64sqm

Furthermore, the proposal would satisfy the objectives stipulated under Part B2.6 – Private Open Space of DCP No.15. The proposal provides for well designed and sufficient amount of landscaping for the integrated development with privacy screening to the rear. The proposal protects part of the existing vegetation of the site and provides for new planting. The proposal has been referred to Council’s Landscape Advisor, Landscape Coordinator and Development Engineer, who have all assessed the application and subject to conditioning consider the proposal to be acceptable.

B3.1 – Contributions for Public Amenity

A condition of approval will be included requiring the applicant to provide Council with a payment of a contribution towards provision of public amenities and embellishment of Public Open Space in accordance with the detailed provisions of Council’s adopted Section 94 Contributions Plan. The fee required in accordance with the Hunters Hill Developer Contributions Plan as adopted by Council in October 2005, is $14,312.00 (for two newly created occupancies).

12.2 Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Development Control Plan No. 17 – Residential Subdi vision The proposed application seeks consent for Torrens Title subdivision. It is considered that the proposed Torrens Title subdivision of the existing hatched shaped allotment would create a blind allotment (Unit No.2), which would not have frontage to public land and would have to rely on the right of way of Unit No.1.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D87


Council does not support the creation of an allotment, from an existing hatched shaped allotment, that does not provide its own frontage and access. Therefore, a condition will be imposed that the proposed Torrens Title subdivision does not form part of this consent. 13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Joubert Street streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan No.15 for a period of ten (10) working days on the 30 May 2008. Within the specified time period seven (7) submissions were received. Copies of the submissions are attached to the report. NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 10 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & Address of Respondents


James Colman (consultant) on behalf of Mark Aggarwal & Sinead Brady 6 Pitt Street Hunters Hill

• Overall size and bulk not changed significantly • Impacts from the height • Breach of the density controls • Appearance of three (3) stories • Excessive bulk • Solar access to Unit No.2 remains minimal and

unacceptable • Removal of existing trees • Impacts from the proposed landscaping • Visual impacts from the rear garden dividing fence

and southern boundary fence • Proximity of terraces and west-facing living areas

David & Danyle Buckingham 2 Pitt Street Hunters Hill

• New side setback breach to the northern boundary as a result of increasing the southern side setback

• Breach of the density controls • No change to the size of the building • Impacts on the natural environment • Site analysis incorrect • Building still having the appearance of three

habitable storeys • Loss of privacy • Noises impacts • Excessive loss of trees that provide habitat and

feeding for birds, including some protected bird species. Trees that are to be removed are to be replaced with low shrubs


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D88


• Neither integrated, nor Torrens Title Subdivision should be considered for this site

Joyce D. Lee & Prof. Alice Nadya Waten 8 Joubert Street Hunters Hill

• Overall size and bulk not changed significantly • Breach of the density controls • Impacts on solar access • Too many vehicles using the joint driveway, which is

adjacent to our bedrooms • Over-development of the site • Loss of trees and habitat of birds and wild-life • The subject allotment has a Right of Way of 2.7m in

width, which is further constrained in its width by overhanging eaves of the existing building at No.8 Joubert Street.

H M Sanders Design Collaborative Pty Ltd On behalf of Mr & Mrs Gyory 8 Pitt Street Hunters Hill

• Impacts of proposed new retaining wall and fence • Loss of the largest tree on the subject site, being a

Sydney Blue Gum tree • Adverse impacts from height • No change to the overall size of the building • Amended shadow diagrams no submitted which

could still have impacts on solar access of No.8 Pitt Street

• Breach of the density controls • New side setback non-compliance to the northern

side Rebecca Fisher 4 Pitt Street Hunters Hill

• Impacts on privacy, due to the removal of established large trees

• Increased noise impacts (cars and increased number of occupants), as a result of the reduction of existing trees

• Proposed landscaping not adequate to compensate for the removal of existing trees

• Stormwater run-off and the impact from the reduction of trees will have on water run off and erosion

• Over-development of the site • Impacts from height

Mario Pellegrino & Amanda Tsoa Lee 12 Joubert Street Hunters Hill

• Loss of water views towards Tarban Creek, due to the proposed garages/carports and high roofline. The subdivision application imposed condition 19 c that “a restriction on user be placed on title to ensure that no development is to be undertaken above 1.2 metres measured directly above the natural ground level.”

• Over-development of site • Excessive amount of carparking and vehicular

movement • The applicant has made little attempt to reduce the

overall size of the development as requested by Council.

Mrs S B Rumble 10 Joubert Street Hunters Hill

• Loss of water views towards Tarban Creek, due to the proposed high roofline.

• Breach of the density controls • Over-development of site


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D89


The main issues of concern outlining the objections are discussed below: • Impacts from the height of the proposed building Comment: Refer to Part 10.5 – Height of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. and to Height under Part 12 - Development Control Plans (DCP).

• Appearance of three (3) stories

Comment: The proposed building is stepped and follows the slopping topography of the site and has an appearance of two (2) habitable storeys. The proposed building provides architectural relief and attempts to break up long lines of walls and provides variation in elevations. The proposed roof is considered to be low profile and unobtrusive.

Also, the foundation areas do not exceed 1400mm in height to create an additional storey. • Excessive bulk Comment: refer to Part 10.5 – Height of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. and to Height under Part 12 - Development Control Plans. The proposed building is stepped and follows the slopping topography of the site and has an appearance of two (2) habitable storeys. The proposed building provides architectural relief and attempts to break up long lines of walls and provides variation in elevations. The proposed roof is considered to be low profile and unobtrusive. Also, refer to the headings of Design Parameters and Preferred Design Elements Under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report.

• Solar access to Unit No.2 Comment: The application provides a Basix Certificate, which confirms that the proposed development will meet the NSW government’s requirements for sustainability. • Impacts from the landscaping

Comment: Originally, the properties to the rear (west) of the subject site raised concern that the proposal does not provide privacy screening. The amended plans now indicate adequate privacy screening to the rear (west) properties by providing a row of 12 Syzygium australe (Lilly Pill) trees, which grow 6-8m in height, along the western (rear) dividing boundary of the subject allotment. It is considered that the proposed landscaping would be beneficial rather than resulting in adverse impacts. • Visual impacts of the dividing fence Comment: The proposed diving fence at the rear garden of the subject allotment would not be visually intrusive on the rear (west) properties, as it is a standard 1800mm timber paling fence and would be screened by the screen planting along the rear of the subject allotment. The amended plans propose a dividing boundary fence to the southern side of the subject allotment constructed of a masonry base and timber on top, with a maximum height of 2m. This is a civil matter between the adjoining parties. However, a condition will be imposed that the southern side boundary fence height is to be no greater than 1.8metres from adjacent ground level, so as to ensure compliance with Part 9 of DCP No.15.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D90


• Excessive excavation Comment: Refer to Garden Area under Part 12 - Development Control Plans of this report. • Proximity of terraces and west-facing living areas Comment: Refer to Privacy under Part 12 - Development Control Plans of this report. • Unacceptable rear setback of the proposed building Comment: The numerical rear setback requirement under Part 7.2.4 – Rear Boundary Setbacks of DCP No.15, is 6m and the amended plans indicate that the rear setback has been increased from approximately 10m to 10.8m, which is considered to be more than sufficient in an urban residential area. • Impacts of noise Comment: The property is to be used for residential purposes, thus the noise generated would be similar to any other dwelling within the vicinity. • Loss of privacy Comment: Refer to Privacy under Part 12 - Development Control Plans of this report. • Excessive loss of trees that provide habitat and fe eding for birds, including

some protected bird species. Comment: It is acknowledged that the proposal would remove several trees to accommodate the proposed building, however both Council’s Landscape Advisor and Landscape Co-ordinator have assessed the application and imposed conditions that additional planting to be reinstated. It should be noted that the zoning of the subject site allows for dwelling houses and integrated development, thus the allotment is permissible to be developed while maintaining part of it’s existing vegetation and introducing new vegetation. • Neither integrated, nor Torrens Title Subdivision s hould be considered for this

site Comment: Refer to Part 10.3 of this report under the heading of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Also, refer to Part 12.2 - Other DCPs, Codes and Policies, under the heading of Development Control Plan No. 17 – Residential Subdivision, of this report.

• Too many vehicles using the joint driveway Comment: Refer to the heading of Car Parking under Part 12 – Development Control Plans of this report. Also, the property is to be used for residential purposes, thus the noise and volume generated would be similar to any other dwelling within the vicinity. • Over-development of the site and adverse impacts fr om the site coverage and

its position Comment: Refer to Part 10.3 - Site Area Requirements, 10.5 - Height of Buildings, 10.6 -Garden Area, 10.7 - Integrated Housing Development, Part 12 – Development Control Plan No.15, Part 12.2 - Other DCPs, Codes and Policies, of this report.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D91


• Impacts on solar access Comment: The applicant has not provided amended shadow diagrams. Refer to the heading of Solar Access under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, under this report. • The footprint of the proposed building is not locat ed in the footprint identified

in the approved subdivision Comment: The footprint that was provided as part of the subdivision application (DA05/1018) was indicative. • Inappropriate fill underneath the proposed garage a nd carport to the southern

elevation Comment: Refer to Garden Area under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report. • The subject allotment has a Right of Way of 2.7m in width, which is further

constrained in its width by overhanging eaves of th e existing building at No.8 Joubert Street.

Comment: This matter was considered and assessed under the subdivision Development Application No.05/1018. Therefore, this matter does not form part of this assessment.

• Breach of the density controls Comment: Refer to Part B2.2 – Housing Density under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report. • Side setback non-compliance of the proposed carport Comment : Refer to Front, Side and Rear Setbacks under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report.

• Stormwater run-off and the impact the reduction of trees will have on water run off and erosion

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the subject application and imposed appropriate conditions. Refer to Part 7.4 of Public Works and Infrastructure.

• Loss of water views towards Tarban Creek, due to th e proposed garages and

carports. The subdivision application imposed condi tion 19 c that “a restriction on user be placed on title to ensure th at no development is to be undertaken above 1.2 metres measured directly above the natural ground level….”

Comment: The objectors that have raised the above matter have partially quoted Condition No.19(c) of Development Application No.05/1018. Condition No.19 (c) reads as follows:

19 (c) A restriction on user shall be placed on title to ensure that no development is to be undertaken above 1.2 metres, measured directly above existing natural ground level unless it is a boundary wall for the extent shown hatched and labelled “Local Development Restricted Zone” on Plan 0502 SP Issue A dated


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D92


16th June, 2005. This restriction to be included on the 88b Instrument with Council being the only power to lift the restriction.

The subject site is affected by an easement located along the northern front boundary, which restricts development within this easement to ensure a suitable view corridor is maintained for the northern surrounding properties. Approved Plan No.0502 SP Issue A, dated 16th June 2005, indicates the “Local Development Restricted Zone” to be 8.53m setback from the eastern boundary of the site. Therefore, development is acceptable to the west of this restricted zone and the above condition should be read in conjunction with approved Plan No.0502 SP Issue A, dated 16th June 2005. Also, refer to Views under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report. • New side setback breach to the northern boundary as a result of increasing

the southern side setback Comment: refer to Setbacks under Part 12 – Development Control Plans, of this report. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Subject to conditioning, the proposed works are considered acceptable and would have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control No.15 & 17 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered acceptable. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s79 C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not unduly impact upon the adjoining residential properties and accordingly is recommended for approval.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No.07/1079 for integrated housing development at No.8a Joubert Street, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions:

1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 this approval shall lapse and be void if the building work or use to which it refers is not substantially commenced within two (2) years after the date of approval.

2. The development consent No.07/1079 relates to the plans prepared by Urban Link Pty Ltd, numbered E-02, E-03, E-04, issue H, dated 29 May 2008, Landscape Plan prepared by Context, numbered L-7567-01, issue D, L-7567-02, issue D, dated 18 February 2008, Schedule of colours and finishes prepared by Urban Link Pty Ltd, Ref:07/012, issue A, dated 1 November 2007.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D93


3. That Torrens Title subdivision does not form part of this approval. Amended plans are to be submitted deleting any reference to Torrens Title subdivision, and to be provided prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

4. A full Geotechnical report, to ensure that the structural integrity of the proposal and

neighbouring buildings will be maintained, is to be submitted to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate and prior to the commencement of excavation works. The Geotechnical report is to be prepared and certified and certified by an appropriately qualified, practising Geotechnical Engineer.

5. Dilapidation reports being prepared and certified by a practising structural engineer

on the current state of the immediate adjoining residential properties. Such reports shall be completed and submitted to Council prior to the

commencement of any excavation or construction work. Upon completion of the approved building works, and prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate, second dilapidation reports are to be carried out on the same buildings and copies submitted to Council. The applicant is to pay for the cost of the above-mentioned reports.

6. So as to preserve the amenity of the residents of the adjoining properties, the

boundary fencing proposed is to be limited to 1.8m above adjacent ground level, and to be constructed of timber.

7. Prior to the issue of Construction Certificate, the following issues are to be addressed:

a) Plan submitted indicating size and location of absorption trenching on the

subject allotment (for driveway drainage) within easement for drainage (B) on DP 1107265. If this is to be disturbed during development an alternative is to be provided by the applicant.

b) Stormwater Management Plan for excavation and construction phase to be

submitted. To include settling pond, filtration and pumpout for de-watering of site and method of preventing concentrated flows from causing nuisance flooding and silt on downstream properties.

c) Stormwater infrastructure in the approved plan, which is to be located below ground and outside the building envelope to be constructed, and a work-as-executed plan provided to Council for approval. On completion of roof, downpipes and lines being connected to the system, and all made operational, in accordance with approved stormwater plans.

These details to be submitted to Principal Certifying Authority for approval and a copy made available to Council for this Development Application

8. That two replacement trees, an Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) and

Angophora floribunda (Rough Barked Apple) be incorporated into the landscape works. These replacement trees should be supplied as 100 litre stock and a bond of $5,000 to be placed with Council on the trees for a period of two (2) years and be refundable pending their successful establishment prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate. Amended plans indicating the location of the proposed replacement trees are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D94


9. The tree protection measures outlined in the previously submitted Arborist Report (prepared by Tree Wise Men Australia Pty Ltd, date stamped 14th August 2007) form part of this approval for this development. The tree protection measures are implemented to ensure the retained trees continue to grow and develop as important landscape components, providing long term amenity for the subject site and its owners or occupants, and the local community.

10. Payment to Council of a contribution under Section 94 of the Environmental

Planning & Assessment Act 1979 for embellishment or provision of public services or amenities such as open space, drainage, roads, carparking, cycleways, community facilities and traffic management. That contribution to be made in accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted in October 2005 and a copy of the plan is available from Customer Services Centre.

The amount payable being: $14,312.00

a) Embellishment of Open Space – ($2440) Account No. 133421.0520 b) Stormwater Drainage – ($1740) Account No. 133423.0520 c) Community Facilities – ($750) Account No. 133424.0520 d) Local Area Traffic Management – ($20) Account No. 133425.0520 e) Bikeways – ($150) Account No. 133426.0520 f) Contributions Plan – ($12) Account No. 133429.0520 g) Acquisition of open space – ($9200) Account No. 133429.0520

11. That the southern side boundary fence height is to be no greater than 1.8metres from

adjacent ground level. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

12. The landscape plan is to be amended to correspond with the amended setbacks of the

plans prepared by Urban Link Pty Ltd, issue H, dated 29 May 2008. Amended plans are to be submitted prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

Standard Conditions: A4-A9, B1, B6, B7, C1-C5, C8-C14, C19, C31-C33, C35, C40-C44, FS2, L2, L4, PE4-PE8, S1, S7(50%). ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Submissions 4. Conciliation Conference minutes 5. Council Report meeting 4247 – 12 May 2008


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D95


ITEM NO : 8

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 06/1093-1

PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE, SWIMMING POOL AND FRONT FENCE – S.96 APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION

PROPERTY : 9 GAZA AVENUE, HUNTERS HILL

APPLICANT : FRED AND GLORIA KHOURY

OWNER : MRS G KHOURY

DATE LODGED : 21 MAY 2008

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH

FILES : 1275/9 & DA 2006/1093 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The original development application was considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting, thus, this modification proposal is required to be considered again by Council.

Issues

• Appearance from the street

Submissions

No submissions were received as a result of notification of the proposal.

Recommendation

The application is recommended for approval because:

1. it is permissible under the zoning;

2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15.

3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties and, as such, is justified.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D96



The approved development is to demolish the existing dwelling house and to construct a new two-storey dwelling house, swimming pool and front fence. A Construction Certificate was issued by a private certifier on 20 December 2007. The application to amend the original consent comprises the following:- • change the ground floor to full brick construction • Provide a concrete slab for the first floor (in place of a wooden floor) • Increase the amount of roof area drainage to the rainwater tank • An altered Basix Certificate. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is situated on the western side of Gaza Avenue, between High Street and Barons Crescent.

The allotment is legally referred to as Lot 42 in DP 16119. The site has a frontage width of 15.24 metres and a site area of 508.9 square metres, based on the survey. The site is relatively flat.

Currently standing on the subject site is a new two storey dwelling in the course of construction. Surrounding development generally consists of dwelling houses of single storey and two storeys in height.

4. PROPERTY HISTORY

The development application was lodged on 28 June 2006. On 4 September 2006, a Notice of Class 1 Appeal to the Land & Environment Court was served on Council against Council’s deemed refusal. The issue raised under appeal was Council’s need for a reduction in the dwelling’s scale and bulk when viewed from the street and to reduce the impact of the garage structure. Revised plans were received and notified on 16 November 2006. One objection was received. Council at its Ordinary Meeting on 12 February 2007 granted development consent, subject to conditions. As a result of that decision by Council, the appeal was discontinued by the applicant. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No 1 (as amended) Zone: Residential 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP Waterways No Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D97


6. POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development 7. REFERRALS 7.1 External Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage The original application was considered by Council’s Conservation Advisory Panel on 16 August 2006. It was also considered by Council’s Heritage Adviser at that time. As the site is not in a Conservation Area and is not a heritage listed item, the application to modify the original consent was not required referred to either of those two parties. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The proposal was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection to the amended proposal. 7.5 Landscaping/Trees Officer The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator, who raised no objection to the amendments. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings: 8.1 Assessment under Section 96 of the Environmenta l Planning and Assessment

Act 1979

This proposal is assessed under Section 96(1A) of the Act and the potential environmental impact must be assessed.

The provisions of this S.96(1A) application for modification of a consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, require Council to be satisfied that the development to which consent as modified relates is substantially the same development for which consent was originally granted.

It is considered that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the modifications relate to the original approved works and are not considered to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents of adjoining properties.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D98


9. STATE INSTRUMENTS/LEGISLATION 9.1 SEPPs Not applicable. 9.2 REPs Not applicable. 9.3 Other Legislation None applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Envi ronmental Plan No.1 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone 2(a1) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Statutory Compliance Table The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Compliance with Current Statutory Controls


HEIGHT Ceiling

6.45 metres

7.2 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 storey 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 50.3% 50% Yes

10.3 Site Area Requirements The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi- unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not applicable to this assessment. 10.5 Height of Buildings The height of the proposal, being 6.45metres and two storeys in height is acceptable as it would comply with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1. 10.6 Garden Area There will be no change to the approved garden area of 50.3%.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D99


10.7 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.8 Foreshore building lines Not applicable.

10.9 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is also located with the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with Clause 18A of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Clause 18A states:


(c) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and (d) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the


The subject site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed works would not be seen from the waterway and accordingly would not affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. 10.10 Other Special Clauses/Development Standards None relevant. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS PLANS 12.2 Compliance Table Residential Development Co ntrol Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/


HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2metres

6.45metres

No

Storeys 2 storeys 2 storeys Yes Garden Area 50% 50.3% Yes BOUNDARY SETBACKS Dwelling house East (Front) West (Rear) North (Side) South (Side)

Pred. Blg. Pattern 4metres 1.5metres 1.5metres

6 – 7.7m 10.3 - 11m 1.5 - 2m 1.5 - 2m

Yes Yes Yes Yes


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D100


Planning Policy –All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No 15. Heritage Conservation Areas Not applicable, as the subject site is not located within a heritage conservation area. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Refer to “Foreshore Scenic Protection Area” under “Part 10.9- Foreshore Scenic Protection Area”. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable, as the subject site is not considered to be a visually prominent site. Height No change. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks No Garden Area No change. Solar Access No change. Privacy No change. Views The proposed works are considered to be satisfactory, given that no views from any adjoining properties would be affected.

Car Parking The proposal complies with the objectives and general requirements. Garages and Carports No change proposed.

Fences No change proposed.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D101


Other DCPs, Codes and Policies

Policy No. 16 – Swimming Pool & Spa Pools. Guide fo r Applicants No change proposed.

13. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The modified proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Gaza Avenue streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no detrimental impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten working (10) days commencing on 29 May 2008. Within the specified time period no submissions were received. CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposed modifications are considered acceptable as a modification to the approved development consent and would have no unreasonable environmental impacts upon the locality when compared to the original approval of Council. The outcome of the development will be considered to be substantially the same as that originally approved. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and following compliance with the relevant development standards and objectives in Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered suitable for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There will be no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION

That the application for modification under S.96(1A) of the Act of the development consent based on Application No. 06/1093 for proposed new two-storey dwelling house with attached garage, swimming pool and front fence at No.9 Gaza Avenue, Hunters Hill, be approved and condition No.53 and No.91 be amended as follows:- 53. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by House

Plans by Design, drawing Nos. 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, issue S96-1 all dated 20 May 2008, as received by Council on 21 May 2008 and ECO Design, drawing No.L-01 Issue D dated 15-11-06.

91. Rainwater tank storage in accordance with DCP No.25 and the energy saving

matters be provided as per the amended Basix Certificiate dated 20 May 2008.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D102


ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D103


ITEM NO : 9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 08/1018 PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF DWELLING HOUSE &

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STOREY DWELLING WITH GARAGE , RAINWATER TANK & LANDSCAPING

PROPERTY : 95 PARK ROAD, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : WESTMINSTER HOMES PTY LTD OWNER : MRS C SEKULOSKI DATE LODGED : 22 FEBRUARY 2008 & 4 JULY 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1555/95 & DA08-1018 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new dwelling on site and as a result the development is required to be referred to Council’s Ordinary Meeting.

Objections

No letters of objection were received as a result of the exhibition of the application.

Recommendation



2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15 and

3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties and, as such, is justified. 2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL To demolish the existing single-storey brick and tile dwelling house and to construct a new two-storey dwelling house with integral single car garage. The building will be constructed in face brick on the ground floor with rendered lightweight construction for the first floor. Selected roof


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D104


tiles will be used. Timber windows and external doors will be used on the ground floor with aluminium framed windows on the upper level. The dwelling house, which will be setback a minimum of 6.0 metres from the street alignment and the garage setback 8.99 metres, will comprise at ground level a front foyer, single car garage, games room, study, dining room, family / meals room, kitchen, powder room, staircase and laundry. At the first floor level will be four (4) bedrooms, (one with an ensuite and a walk-in robe), linen closet, bathroom and staircase. A 3,000 litre rainwater storage tank will be installed adjacent to the northern wall of the new dwelling. The site will be extensively landscaped. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Lot 2 in DP 21498 and is known as No.95 Park Road, Hunters Hill. The site has a frontage of 15.24 metres and an area of 461.1square metres. The site has a slope of approximately 0.75 metres down to the road.

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Park Road, between Ramleh Street and Barons Crescent.

Existing on the subject site is a single-storey brick / tile cottage. There is a single width carport sited on the street alignment. Adjoining to the north is a single-storey weatherboard/tile dwelling house. Adjoining to the south is a two-storey duplex dwelling at the corner of Park Road and Ramleh Street. At the rear thereof is a two-storey brick / tile dwelling fronting Barons Crescent. Opposite to the west over Park Road are two-storey and single-storey dwelling houses and driveways to hatchet-shaped lots. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

A preliminary consultation meeting took place on 20 June 2007 at which the focus was on the double car garage facilities and advice was given that such plans were not deemed acceptable. A preliminary consultation meeting took place with the DCU on 24 October 2007 at which amended design plans were submitted. The main advice details that resulted from the meeting related to garden area, garage design and a consistent roof pitch. It also stated that the design as submitted would be recommended for refusal due in particular to the garage projecting forward of the main building. The amended plans submitted on 4 July 2008 provided for the retention of the mature Jacaranda tree at the front of the site, the deletion of the manoeuvring area at the front of the building (which would have necessitated the removal of the Jacaranda) and the removal of the lower level hipped roof line from the front elevation of the new dwelling. 5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D105


Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a1) Conservation Area: No Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005: No Development Control Plan: No.15 Listed Heritage item: No Contributory Building No Adjoins contributory item: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: No 6. POLICY CONTROLS

Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development 7. REFERRALS


Not applicable.

7.2 Health & Building


The property is not within a conservation area and is not a heritage item nor a contributory item under Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Therefore, the application was not referred to the Conservation Advisory Panel or to Council’s Heritage Adviser.

7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure

The proposal was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection subject to condition Nos.3 and 4 as set out in the recommendation.

7.5 Parks & Landscape

The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Parks and Landscape Co-ordinator who raised no objection to the amended landscape design as submitted subject to compliance with condition No.10, as set out in the recommendation.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings. 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION

9.1 State Environmental Planning Polic ies (SEPPs)

Not applicable.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D106


9.2 Regional Environment Plans (REPs)

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The subject site is not located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. 9.3 Other Legislation


10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Envi ronmental Plan No.1 and Zone



Proposed Required Control Compliance

Garden Area 53.36% 50% Yes Number of Storeys 2 2 Yes Ceiling Height 6.4 metres 7.2 metres Yes


The proposal complies with these requirements. 10.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi- unit housing-density and garden

area controls

Not applicable. 10.5 Height of Buildings

The height of the proposal, being a maximum of 6.4 metres and 2 storeys in height complies with the maximum of 7.2 metres/no more than two storeys height limit as prescribed by Clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.6 Garden Area

The proposed garden area of 53.36% complies with the 50% minimum permissible garden area as prescribed by the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 if the shade structure over the terrace beside the pool is removed. 10.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D107


10.8 Foreshore building lines

Not applicable.


Not applicable. 10.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards

No relevant clauses or standards that apply to this application. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Co ntrol Plan No.15 CONTROL REQUIRED/


HEIGHT Ceiling

7.2 metres

6.4 metres

Yes

Storeys 2 2 Yes Garden Area 50% 53.36% Yes Front setback Predominant building

line 6.0m/8.99m Yes

Side setback (south)

1.5 metres 1.5 metres Yes – see below

Side setback (north) 1.5 metres 1.5 metres Yes – see below Rear setback 6.0 metres 6.47m/7.05m Yes

Planning Policy –All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No 15. Heritage Conservation Areas Not applicable. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and, as such, assessment is required in accordance with clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states: 18A. The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry

out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that area shown by hatching on the map marked "Hunter's Hill Local Environmental Plan No.14 - Heritage Conservation", unless it has made an assessment of:

(e) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when

viewed from the waterway; and


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D108


(f) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6(b).

The proposal has no impact in relation to the waterway or the foreshore and is considered appropriate development in relation to the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed works cannot be seen from the waterways and, as a result, would satisfy the requirements stipulated under Clause 18 of the Hunters Hill LEP No.1. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height The proposal complies with the height controls of the DCP. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks Complies. Garden Area Complies. Solar Access Clause 7.4 requires that development should not eliminate more than one third of the existing solar access to adjoining properties measured at ground level at 9am, noon and 3pm in mid winter. The shadow diagrams indicate that the existing outdoor areas and established areas of private open space of adjoining premises to the south will continue to receive at least 3 hours of solar access during the winter solstice. Privacy As there are no decks or verandahs off the first floor rooms, loss of privacy to adjoining residents is not considered an issue. Views No views will be lost as result of this development. Car Parking

The proposal, which provides for a garage complies with the objectives and general requirements of the DCP. There will be room for the open parking of a vehicle in front of the garage. Garages and Carports

Part 8 of DCP No.15, requires that garaging be sited behind front building line of the dwelling house. The proposal indicates a garage in such a location, which complies with the DCP provisions.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D109


Fences No new fencing is proposed on the plans submitted with the application.


Not applicable.


The revised proposal is considered not to unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the Park Road streetscape. As stated within the body of the report, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no social and economic impacts to the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 7 March 2008. Within the specified time period no submission were received. The alterations as submitted to Council on 4 July 2008 were of a minor nature and were requested by Council to provide for an improved design product. As a result of this, the application was not considered to warrant a further notification exercise. 15. THE PUBLIC INTEREST It is considered that the proposed development is reasonable for approval in the public interest. CONCLUSION

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. The proposed works are considered acceptable and will have no unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining properties. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and not withstanding the non-compliance with the relevant development standard and objectives in DCP No. 15 and LEP No.1 the application is considered acceptable. For the reasons outlined in this report it is considered that the proposed development would not detrimentally impact upon the residential amenity, the Park Road streetscape, would not undermine the integrity of Council’s planning policies, and, accordingly, is recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D110


RECOMMENDATION

That Development Application No. 08/1018 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a two-storey dwelling with integral garage, stormwater tank and landscaping at No.95 Park Road, Hunters Hill, be approved, subject to the following conditions: Special Conditions: 1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by

Westminster Homes, drawing numbers 1 to 6 Revision ‘G’ dated 2 July 2008, as received by Council on 4 July 2008 and in accordance with landscape plans prepared by A Total Concept Landscape Architects drawing Nos.1 to 3 dated June 2008 as received by Council on 4 July 2008, except where amended by conditions of this approval.

2. Compliance with the provisions of the Basix Certificate dated 6 February 2008. 3. Stormwater storage and discharge to be generally in accordance with site setout

plan and DCP No.25. Full detail to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority for approval prior to Construction Certificate being issued.

4. On commencement of site works, Council is to be consulted on footpath

reconstruction and trimming of Ficus tree branches and roots at the nature strip. 5. The finished surfaces of the dwelling being provided in accordance with the

“External Colour Selection Sheet” as prepared by Westminster Homes as received by Council on 22 February 2008.

6. The rainwater tank not being connected to the mains water for ‘topping up’ purposes.

7. For the purpose of residential amenity, any motor pump that may be used with the rainwater tank being housed in a sound attenuating enclosure such that the noise emanating from such equipment is not in excess of the ambient background sound level at the site boundaries.

8. No skip bins being placed on Council footpath or public road. 9. Overnight or daytime placement of building materials and equipment on Council

property is prohibited. Reason: Public amenity and safety. 10. Tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to any demolition, excavation or

construction works commencing on the site. The Arborist shall also inspect the site at regular intervals throughout the development period to ensure the specifications for tree protection are maintained. A site log shall record the details of these inspections.

11. The air conditioning equipment being acoustically treated in such a way that the noise

emitted does not exceed 5dBA at the boundaries of the site at any time. 12. The window to the upper level bathroom on the north-west elevation being of obscure

glazing.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D111



A1, A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($1,295), C1 to C5, C12, C19, C31 to C34, C40, C41, C44, D1, D2, D8, D10, PE4, PE7, S1, W1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D112


ITEM NO : 10

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO 07/1103

PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF BOATHOUSE AND PART OF DWELLING, ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS INCLUDING A BASEMENT GARAGE AND SIDE DRIVEWAY PLUS FRONT FENCE SWIMMING POOL AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING

PROPERTY 12 (& 10A) THE POINT ROAD, WOOLWICH

APPLICANT MELOCCO & MOORE ARCHITECTS

OWNER MR M S DE ANGELIS

DATE LODGED 2 AUGUST 2007 & 28 MARCH 2008


REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH ACTING DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

FILES : 1685/12 & DA07/1103 1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The proposal involved the lodgement of an SEPP No.1 objection in relation to height.

Objections

One objection was received as a result of public exhibition relating to loss of views, overshadowing, setbacks and the like.

Recommendation



2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15;

3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of the occupants of adjoining properties,

and, as such, is reasonable in the circumstances.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D113


2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL The proposal is to demolish the ‘boathouse’ at the northern end of the site, to remove some internal walls from the original dwelling, to demolish the single storey addition at the rear of the dwelling, to demolish the in-ground swimming pool at the rear of the existing dwelling house and to demolish the carport at the front of the site.

It is proposed to excavate part of the adjoining driveway of hatchet-shaped lot No.10A The Point Road to provide the opening for vehicles and service the proposed new basement level garage.

It is proposed to construct a stepped, flat roofed with highlight windows, two-storey addition and two (2) part basement levels to the rear of the two-storey section of the existing dwelling. Collectively, the dwelling will be used for the following purposes:-

• At Basement level 1, (lower level) it will accommodate a rainwater storage area, pool plant, gym and games room. It will open onto a full width terrace opening onto an in-ground swimming pool, which will have steel safety fencing.

• At Basement level 2 (upper level), it will accommodate a two (2) car garage, laundry, mechanical plant room, cellar, linen closet, storeroom, study and rumpus room. A shallow L-shaped terrace will wrap around the addition to the north, with metal balustrading, and part of the west elevation. Timber framed widows and doors

• A level 3 (Ground floor level), it will accommodate a new staircase, two (2) bathrooms, W.C., two (2) bedrooms, storeroom beneath stairs, guest room, formal entry, cool room, pantry, kitchen, dining/living room. A large covered terrace will be provided to the north of the addition, with metal balustrading, and a smaller terrace will be provided to the eastern side of the addition. Timber framed windows and doors will be used on the northern elevation.

• At level 4 (First floor level), it will accommodate a new staircase, bedroom, bathroom and master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in robe.

The front elevation of the dwelling house will be restored and an addition over the existing ground floor annex will be constructed with a new tiled roof form and in a timber finish to accommodate the new bathroom at first floor level.

It is proposed to erect a new front fence on the alignment comprising split faced and cut edged sandstone block 1.8 metre high piers and plinth with vertical slatted timber palings up to 1.5 metres high. A section of ‘new sandstone and solid timber boundary fence to detail’ at a height of 1.8 metres is shown at the eastern end of the street frontage as a return end on its western side and at an angle to the street alignment from the eastern corner of the site. The maximum setback will be 2.7 metres . Two sets of timber pedestrian gates, each 1.8 metres high and one to the west and one to the east, will be incorporated in the front fence work.

A timber slatted (paling) fence 1.8 metres high will form the side return fence on the western elevation. A 1 metre high timber slatted (paling) fence will continue on the western boundary beyond the building line to the rear of the existing two-storey dwelling.

A timber finish double garage door will be provided on the western retaining wall of the premises approximately half way along the site. A fixed vent grille 3.3 metres wide x 2.8 metres high will be located on the western retaining wall giving ventilation to the garage.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D114


The driveway to No.10A will be excavated to give a maximum slope of 1 in 4, plus transitions, which will be used as access to the basement garage facilities. The retaining wall will be clad in sandstone.

External stairways will be provided to the east and west of the additions giving access to the various levels of the additions from the adjoining ground levels.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 588659 and Lot B in DP 950953 and is known as 12 The Point Road, Woolwich.

The subject site is located on the northern side of The Point Road, Woolwich and is a conventional-shaped allotment, being adjacent to Lane Cove River. The site is unique in that it is part of a two-lot subdivision in an area that is generally comprised of allotments that extend from the street to the water. Existing on the subject site is a two-storey and part single-storey dwelling with a front carport and a single-storey ‘boathouse’ at the rear of the site facing the water. There is a timber jetty and pontoon onto the river from the rear of the site. Surrounding development comprises two storey and three-storey dwellings, having variations in style, form, period of construction and scale. 4. PROPERTY HISTORY

A representative of the owner sought pre-lodgment advice through Councils Development Control Unit (DCU) on 13 April 2005. The proposed development included alterations and additions to an existing two-storey dwelling. The proposal also included a lap swimming pool and spa adjacent to the western boundary. The DCU committee raised a number of concerns including garden area and the potential impact from the proposed extent of brick to glazing ratio to the river.

During the site inspection of 20 February 2006, it was observed that substantial works had occurred on site. These works appeared to be occurring without development consent.

The works appeared to include:

• The introduction of a new storey, substantially below ground. • Substantial excavation along the western boundary for a proposed lap swimming

pool and spa. • Substantial alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, including the removal of

a number of internal walls, removal of roof and all external windows and doors.

5. PROPERTY HISTORY

This application was subject to amendments as submitted to Council on 28 March 2008 which provided for the following alterations to the original plans submitted:- • Increase the garden area to beyond 60%. • Altered front fence design • Altered bulk and setback to the western elevation


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D115


• Modify the glazed elements to the northern elevation • Altered finished surface materials and colours • Better detail of fencing and driveway works • Amendment to roof over level 4 bathroom. 6. STATUTORY CONTROLS 6 .1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Local Environmental Plan No.1 (as amended) Zone: 2(a2) SREP Foreshore Area 2005 Yes Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes Development Control Plan: Residential Development No.15 Listed Heritage item: Yes Adjoins heritage building No Contributory Building: No Vicinity of Heritage Item: Yes No.8 The Point Road 7. POLICY CONTROLS

Development Control Plan No.15 (Residential Development) 8. REFERRALS


NSW Maritime whose conditions are set out in the recommendation. 8.2 Health & Building


The subject premises are in a Conservation area and are a listed heritage item. They are also in the vicinity of a listed heritage item. The original application was referred to the Council’s Conservation Advisory Panel on 21 November 2007 at which it reported:-

David Melocco of Melocco & Moore architects, and the owner, Marc De Angelis addressed the meeting. It was advised that the proposal is to be amended following advice from Council’s Planning Officers in order to comply with the 60% garden area requirement, but that the CAP’s reaction to the design is sought in the meantime. In considering the proposal, the CAP were of the view that the regrading of the driveway (which is shared with the property considered in the previous item, 10A The Point Road) will give rise to adverse impacts on views due to the proposed


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D116


deepening of the excavation and the presentation of excessively high retaining walls to oblique views from the Lane Cove River. The hard surfaces and deep shadows will also serve to reduce the inter-building planting potential as promoted in Council’s DCP 15. Discussion also revolved around the composition and shapes proposed in the new works facing the river. It was concluded that the inverted catenary-like roof would be better clad in zinc, or a material more compatible with the prevalent roof colours found in the area, and that the walls would benefit from materials that are “natural” and textured. The Panel were of the view that the proposed works to the The Point Road frontage- the removal of the existing carport structure, and the removal of the paint from the house walls will be of benefit to the streetscape of The Point Road.

Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised that the CAP considers that further design development work and reconsideration of materials and the potential visual impact of the proposal in views from the Lane Cove River is required before the application can be supported on heritage conservation grounds.

The amended application was referred to Conservation Advisory Panel on 19 March 2008 at which it reported:

David Melocco of Melocco and Moore and the owner, Marc DeAngelis addressed the meeting. An amending design had been prepared following advise from Council’s planning officers with regard to shortcomings in the proposal in terms of compliance with Council’s planning controls, potential amenity impacts on neighbours, and the previous comments of the CAP. It was explained that the proposal had been fore-shortened in terms of projection towards the Lane Cove River, I relation to the western boundary, amended in terms of the proposed materials to be used, and that the proposed common driveway access had been redesigned to assuage the CAP’s concerns as to its visual impact. Discussion revolved around the proposed driveway redesign- with the proposed re-grading and provision of an earth berm “stop” to the Lane Cove River end, which is to be densely planted to screen the cut to the eastern side of the driveway in views from the River. Materials were discussed briefly in terms of the provision of more textured finishes to the new works, and the proposed ensuite addition to the The Point Road frontage was also considered. This element would be better done as a skillion roof laid up against the existing front wall, it was felt- or perhaps as a “broken pitch” off the main roof. The proposed weatherboard cladding was considered appropriate to differentiate this element, given that it is to be painted to match the timber to the eastern gable cladding. A drawing of the proposed front fence and entrance gates was presented, and the CAP found it to be appropriate. In general terms, the CAP found the amending scheme appropriate, and given that the above matters are addressed, supportable in terms of potential heritage impacts on the item, those in the vicinity and views from the Lane Cove River.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D117


Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised of the Panel’s general support for the proposal, noting the matters to be addressed as outlined above.

The amended plans were referred back to the Panel which at its meeting of 21 May 2008 reported:-

Panel members reviewed the amending drawings for the proposed alterations and additions to the existing residence to the above with regard to the changes to the design following comments provided over the course of meetings in March, September & November 2007). In reviewing the proposal, the CAP noted that the proposed earthworks and plantings to the northern end of the proposed shared driveway with No 10A The Point Road has addressed its concerns with regard to the potential impacts of the retaining wall. It was also noted that the ensuite appendage to the The Point Road frontage had been amended to accord with suggestions made at its previous meeting. Further, it was noted that the cladding for the proposed catenary roof had been noted as zinc sheeting and that the proposed external materials were now considered generally appropriate.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who by report dated 31 October 2007 stated:- Heritage Status: Sch. 6 Item, adjoins Sch 6 Item (No 14), foreshore location. Statement of Heritage Impact: Prepared by Urbis (Stephen Davies) Comments : the proposal has been reviewed by the CAP at its meeting of March, September and November 2007, and March and May 2008. The minutes of the March 2008 meeting are quoted above: Recommendation: I have been present at all the CAP meetings and concur with the matters and recommendations of the most recent minutes as quoted above. Public Works and Infrastructure The proposal was referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who advised that subject to condition No.7 as set out in the recommendation, there are no objections in respect of this development. 8.4 Parks & Landscape

The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Landscape Consultant who reported that the application is suitable for approval subject to condition Nos. 5 & 6 of Schedule 1 as set out in the recommendation 9. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings:


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D118


10. STATE INSTRUMENTS / LEGISLATION


The plans indicate a non-compliance in relation to the development standards of height under LEP No.1 which are 2 storeys and 7.2 metres. The development does not comply with the 7.2 metre height in that the ceiling height of the north-east corner of the existing two-storey house is 8.8 metres as existing (and this does not change with the works involved). In order to justify the existing height non-conformity, the applicant has submitted an SEPP No.1 objection. The objection addresses such development standard and its non-compliance in relation to the height under the aims and objectives as applying to the development. The applicant is considered to have properly argued that the strict compliance with the standard of 7.2 metres height is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. The objection is considered reasonable to be upheld by Council. A copy of the SEPP No.1 objection is attached. 10.2 Regional Environment Plans (REPs)

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 The subject site is located within the area covered by SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005. This plan has a number of general aims and objectives, the most relevant of which, in this case, is as follows:

Aims of plan




(ii) as a public asset of national and heritage significance, for existing and future generations,









Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D119






Furthermore, Part 3 Division 2 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 lists matters for consideration by Council when determining an application. It further states that Council shall not grant consent to an application unless it is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the SREP. The following matters for consideration are relevant to this application:

25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality The matters to be taken into consideration in relation to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways are as follows:







As stated within the report, there are no heritage issues associated with this application. The proposed development would be discernable from the waterway but would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. It is considered that the proposal would satisfy the above aims of the policy and matters for consideration, in particular those of particular relevance pertaining to the appearance of the development from the waterway and foreshore, heritage issues and those requiring the protection and enhancement of the landscape qualities of the River. The rear elevation of the building features large eave overhangs that will give substantial shadow effects on such part of the building. This will ‘soften’ the effect of the extent of the door and window glazing on and around that part of the building and improve its design image when viewed from the river. 10.3 Other Legislation

Not applicable.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D120


11. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1

11.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Envi ronmental Plan No.1 and Zone

The proposal is permissible with consent under the Residential 2(a2) zoning and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. The LEP sets out the criteria that a new development is required to comply with. The objectives of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan are considered to be met by this proposal subject to conditions. 11.2 Statutory Compliance Table

The following table illustrates whether or not the proposed development complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. Current Statutory Controls




Yes No-see SEPP 1 objection

Garden Area 60% 60% Yes Foreshore building line 27.5 metres 10 metres Yes


Not applicable. 11.4 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi- unit housing-density and garden

area controls

Not applicable. 11.5 Height of Buildings

See SEPP No.1 objection under part 9.1 above. 11.6 Garden Area

The proposed garden area for the development has been increased from 51% to 60% as a result of this latest development proposal. No SEPP No.1 objection is required for the garden area of the development. 11.7 Integrated Housing Development

Not applicable. 11.8 Foreshore building lines

Complies.



Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D121




(g) the appearance and visual quality of the proposed development

when viewed from the waterway; and (h) the impact of the proposed development of the view towards the


The proposal has taken into consideration the objectives of the LEP and has provided a design that is considered to be sympathetic to the visual quality of the ‘riverscape’.

11.10 Other Special Clauses / Development Standards


No relevant draft amendments apply to this application. 13. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

Residential Development Control Plan No.15


Development Control Plan No 15 – Residential Development is the policy that applies to residential development. The purpose of the plan is to provide more detailed planning and building controls than are available in LEP No.1, as amended. One of the functions of DCP No.15 is to establish parameters for the assessment of amenity issues such as appearance and character, privacy, solar access, preservation of views and car parking. The objectives as outlined in DCP No. 15 are as follows: a. Development should be compatible with the landscape character of the area.

Generally the landscape character of Hunters Hill is encapsulated in the “tree” whether indigenous, native or exotic. Hunter’s Hill Council is committed to protecting and enhancing the area’s landscape character and natural environment.

b. Development, particularly when viewed from the street or other public place should be compatible with the character and scale of any existing building to be retained on the site and residential development in the immediate vicinity.

c. Development, particularly when viewed from public reserves, National Parks, waterways or across valleys should not be obtrusive in or upon the natural landscape.

e. In areas with significant stylistic/architectural associations and identity, additions and new development should be designed in sympathy with their surrounds.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D122


It is considered that the proposal complies with sub-clauses (a) to (d) of the objectives of DCP No.15, as the development when viewed from the street would be compatible with the character of the development in the vicinity of the site. 13.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Co ntrol Plan No.15 Control Required/

Permissible Proposal Compliance



Yes No-see SEPP 1

Garden area 60% 60% Yes Side boundary setback West side East side

1.5 metres 1.5 metres

2.0m/1.2m 500mm & var.

Yes/No No/Yes

Rear setback 6.0 metres 27.5 metres Yes Foreshore building line 10 metres 27.5 metres Yes

Scale Complies. Design Parameters

The proposal meets the requirements of Part 3.2 (a)(i), being Design Parameters, under Hunters Hill DCP No.15, which states:

3.3 Design Parameters

“(a) Development should ensure that the size and shape of development, the extent of cut and fill, the type and colour of building materials, the design of roofs (in terms of materials, colour, pitch, etc) and the amount and type of landscaping, are:

(i) Compatible with the character and scale of surrounding residential development.”

The development will not be out of character with that of the surrounding development.

Heritage Conservation Areas

See part 7.3 Heritage above. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

See details under Part 10.9 above. Visually Prominent Sites


Complies.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D123


Front, Side and Rear Setbacks

The minor encroachment of the side boundary setback to the western boundary is considered reasonable in this case as there is an encroachment by the existing dwelling structure and there is a major separation to the residential premises to the west which includes the access driveway to the hatchet-shaped lot at No. 10A. The new encroachment on the eastern boundary setback for the additions which be 500mm distant at the closest point (enclosed staircase over two levels) is not considered reasonable to support. As a result, this has been recommended for deletion , and hence compliance, as per Schedule 1 condition No.2. Garden Area

Complies. Solar Access

Complies with the DCP provisions. Privacy

This topic is covered by part 7.5 of the DCP in which it sets out objectives and general requirements. There will be loss of privacy to the adjoining neighbour to the east from the elevated terrace off the new kitchen, which has a series of sliding doors opening onto the terrace. Here, the terrace is located on the common boundary for a length of around 8 metres with depth ranging from 3.5 metres to 1.5 metres. At the worst point, the floor level of the terrace will be 2 metres above existing natural ground level on the boundary; at the best point it will be at ground level at the southern end, which gives access to the yard area to the side of the existing/original two-storey house. In order to reasonably preserve the privacy of the adjoining resident, a condition No.3 has been set out under Schedule 1. This will reflect the option of a walkway from the kitchen doors in a southerly direction to the side front yard area. Views

There will loss of side water views from the ground floor kitchen window of No.14. There will be no loss of direct water views (which is the predominant feature for the indoor living areas and outdoor spaces) from the rear of the adjoining premises.

Using the principles set by the Land & Environment Court for view sharing, it is stated that ‘The expectation to retain side views …. Is often unrealistic’. The case here is the concern of the objector to preserve side views, which could not be justified.

Car Parking

The proposal complies with Part 7.7.2 of the DCP. However, to provide for the new parking facilities, the development will rely on the creation of a right-of-carriageway over part of adjoining land at No.10A The Point Road. This facility will have to be created by registration prior to the consent being able to be acted upon utilising a Construction Certificate.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D124


Schedule 1 condition No.1 in the recommendation sets out this pre-requisite to an ‘outright’ development approval. Garages & Carports

The proposal complies with the provisions of Part 8 of the DCP. Fences

The proposed new front fencing is not in accordance with the DCP provisions and will not conform to the likely future streetscape in this respect. A Schedule 1 condition No.4 sets out the requirements to give better conformity to those provisions of the DCP. 14. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT

The likely impacts of the development are such that there will be no undue detrimental effects on the amenity of the neighbourhood, subject to compliance with conditions as set out in the recommendation. 15. SUBMISSIONS

The original application plans were placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 14 August 2007. As a result of that exercise, one(1) letter of objection was received which was accompanied by a valuation of the adjoining property at No.14 The Point Road. A copy of that letter and the valuation are attached. The most recent development plans were notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten working (10) days commencing on 3 April 2008. Within the specified time period, one (1) letter of objection was received, which raised substantially the same issues as the earlier letter and it is addressed in detail below :- NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 6 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED Name & address of respondents


Julie Bryant 14 The Point Road WOOLWICH

• Loss of views • Lack of setbacks along the

eastern boundary and proximity of the new building to dwelling at No.14 The Point Road

• Overshadowing • Landscaping plan • Loss of privacy from partly

enclosed terrace areas • Loss of heritage significance • Lack of some detail on the

plans-proposed boundary fence along the common boundary


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D125


• Loss of views

Comment: There will be a loss of side water views from the ground floor kitchen window of No.14. There will be no loss of direct water views (which is the predominant feature for the indoor living areas and outdoor spaces) from the rear of the adjoining premises.

Using the principles set by the Land & Environment Court for view sharing, it is stated that ‘The expectation to retain side views …. Is often unrealistic’. The case here is the concern of the objector to preserve side views which could not be justified.

• Lack of setbacks along the eastern boundary and pro ximity of the new building to dwelling at No.14 The Point Road

Comment: On inspecting the subject site and the height poles from the adjoining premises, it is agreed that a section of the eastern elevation will be too close to that common boundary in that it breaches the side boundary setback requirements of the DCP. A schedule 1 condition has been set out in the recommendation to overcome this design issue raised by the objector.

• Overshadowing

Comment: Whilst there will be some mid-winter overshadowing of the adjoining premises to the east, there will be sufficient solar access available to comply with the DCP provisions for this topic.

• Landscaping plan

Comment: The concern raised is the intention to plant various types of trees close to the eastern boundary, which, when they reach maturity, will block out water views along the river from inside the dwelling at No.14. They will also increase the winter overshadowing to No.14. A schedule 2 condition No.4 has been set out in the recommendation to prevent such a result.

• Loss of privacy from partly enclosed terrace areas

Comment: The need to give privacy to the adjoining neighbours is covered by condition No.3 as set out in schedule 1 of the recommendation.

• Loss of heritage significance

Comment: The updated heritage report was subsequently received by Council and a copy was made available for perusal to the objector. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Heritage Adviser who has not raised concern about damage or loss to the heritage significance of the subject premises or of the adjoining heritage item.

• Lack of some detail on the plans-proposed boundary fence along the common boundary

Comment: Generally this is a matter between the adjoining owners under the Dividing Fences Act. On the eastern elevation of the plans, it shows the existing ground line to be maintained at the eastern boundary of the site. It also shows the height of the ‘new East boundary fence’.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D126


CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The development is considered reasonable in that Council could support the SEPP No.1 objection in relation to the development standard for height under the LEP No.1 provisions. It is therefore recommended that the objection be supported on the basis that the non-conformity relates to the original dwelling, which is to be retained and strict compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. A deferred commencement condition has been set out to require the registration of the Right-of-Carriageway for vehicular access over part of adjoining land at No.10A The Point Road before the consent can be acted upon. The deletion of the staircase from the eastern side of the additions is considered necessary to remove the major encroachment into the 1.5 metre setback requirements of DCP No.15 and would create amenity problems for the adjoining neighbour to the east. Other matters, such as landscaping, privacy protection and front fence work are subject to Schedule 1 conditions in the recommendation. The proposed works are considered acceptable for a deferred commencement approval, subject to the details being provided as set out as conditions under schedule 1 in the recommendation and particularly that matter of ensuring that the proposal is not a ‘new’ development due to the extent of demolition. There would be no unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the residents of adjoining premises, subject to the conditions as set out in the recommendation. The proposal has been assessed in terms of the public interest and having compliance with the relevant provisions and objectives of Development Control Plan No.15 and Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1, the application is considered suitable for approval. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 and Development Control Plan No. 15. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposed development would not detrimentally impact upon the amenity of the residents of the adjoining properties and, accordingly, is recommended for conditional deferred commencement approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION A. That the Council, as the consent authority, is satisfied that the objection under State

Environmental Planning Policy No.1 to vary the height standard of clause 15 of the Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 is well founded under the circumstances of the case and is consistent with the aims of the Policy.

C. That a “Deferred commencement” consent No. DA2007/1103 be approved

pursuant to Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in respect of No.12 & No.10A The Point Road, Woolwich. The development consent as contained in Schedule 2 shall not operate (or be issued) until such time as the matters contained in schedule 1 are finalised to the satisfaction of Council. Unless these Schedule 1 conditions are given compliance within two (2) years of the date of this resolution, the consent will lapse.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D127


Schedule 1 1. The registration of a right-of-carriageway with the Land Titles Office to be created with

respect to the joint driveway access proposed over the eastern section of adjoining land at No.10A The Point Road.

2. The deletion of the enclosed two level staircase on the eastern side of the additions,

which substantially encroach on the 1.5 metres minimum side boundary setback requirement of DCP No.15 and would create amenity problems for the adjoining neighbour to the east.

3. The eastern side terrace at level 3 off the proposed kitchen being deleted for privacy

purposes, replaced with a 1 metre wide (or less) walkway adjacent to the new addition, to give access to the side yard beside the existing two-storey house and that a privacy screen 1.8 metres high be provided where the walkway is elevated above existing natural ground level.

4. The proposed new front fence with pedestrian gate at the western end and the new

front fence/return wall and pedestrian gate at the eastern end of the site being altered to not exceed 1.5 metres in height above footway level at any point. Such altered details to be also shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

5. The landscape plan being amended to accommodate a greater variety and number of

plant material for the foreshore area, and particularly along the western boundary. 6. The landscape plan being amended to accommodate an additional two (2) canopy trees

capable of achieving a mature height of 12 metres and being sited away from the eastern boundary.

Schedule 2 That Development Application No. 2007-1103 for the demolition work and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house plus a swimming pool at No.12 The Point Road, Woolwich, be approved , subject to conditions: Special Conditions 1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by Melocco &

Moore Architects Project No.0608 D drawing Nos. 02 H, 03 J, 04 K, 05 E, 11 I, 12 I, 13 C, 30 D, 31 D & 99 D dated 25 March 2008 as received by Council on 28 March 2008 and being carried out in accordance with landscape plan prepared by Spirit Level Designs Job 498 drawing No.LP01 revision D dated 10 March 2008 as received by Council on 21 March 2008, except where amended by the conditions of this consent. 1. The external materials and colours to be used in the development being in

accordance with the details as prepared by Melocco & Moore drawing No.50 B, as received by Council on 11 March 2008.

2. The development being constructed in accordance with the Basix Certificate

dated 4 March 2008 as submitted with the development application. 3. The landscape plan being amended to provide for landscaping of the area to

be ‘opened up’ by the removal of the eastern staircase and the change to tree planting along the northern half of the eastern boundary such that they do not


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D128


have a maturity height in excess of 3 metres to maintain light and views to the residents of No.14 The Point Road.

4. The rainwater tank not being connected to the mains water for ‘topping up’

purposes.

Reason: Malfunction of several of these systems recently approved in other properties, with associated water wastage (refer to DCP No.25)

5. The provision of any pump for the rainwater tank, the air-conditioning

equipment and the pool motor to be installed on the outside of the building being acoustically treated to ensure that noise does not exceed 5dBA above ambient noise levels on the boundaries at any time.

6. The works being carried out such that no materials are eroded, or likely to be

eroded are deposited, or likely to be deposited, on the bed or shore or into the waters of the Lane Cove River and no materials are likely to be carried by natural forces to the bed, shore or waters of the Lane Cove River.

7. Any material that does enter the Lane Cove River must be removed

immediately. 8. Best practice methods being adopted for the on-site control of runoff,

sediment and other pollutants during, and post, construction. Methods must be in accordance with the relevant specifications and standards contained in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils & Construction issued by the NSW Department of Housing / Landcom in 2004 and any other relevant Council requirements.

9. The erosion, sediment and pollution controls must be installed and stabilised

before commencement of site works. This does not include the works associated with the construction of the appropriate controls.

10. The erosion, sediment and pollution control system must be effectively

maintained at or above design capacity for the duration of the works and until such time as all ground disturbed by the works has been stabilised and rehabilitated so that it no longer acts as a source of sediment.

11. Any material that is to be stockpiled on site being stabilised to prevent

erosion or dispersal of the material. 12. Any foreshore landscaping being comprised of locally indigenous species,

which represent the original plant communities that would have been found along the foreshore in the vicinity of the subject land.

13. The foreshore being fully protected for the duration of the works. This

includes preventing the storage of any machinery, materials, equipment, supplies, or waste receptacles within the inter-tidal area.

14. No works being undertaken on land owned by NSW Maritime (i.e. below

MHWM) without the relevant approvals being granted by NSW Maritime.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D129


15. Any trees that are removed during the works are to be replaced elsewhere on the site with a suitable replacement. Replacement trees are to be of locally indigenous species.

16. No works are to be undertaken on land owned by NSW Maritime (i.e. below

MHWM) without the relevant approvals being granted by NSW Maritime. 17. Prior to approval, the stormwater plan and landscape concept plan being

integrated to provide a clear picture of overflow from the final pit, the direction of flows and the absorbtion capability.

i. Dilapidation reports being prepared and certified by a practising

structural engineer on the current state of the adjoining dwellings at Nos. 10, 10A and 14 The Point Road. Such reports shall be completed and submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction work. Upon completion of the approved building works, second dilapidation reports are to be carried out on the last-mentioned buildings. The applicant is to pay for the cost of the above-mentioned reports.

Standard Conditions

A1, A4 to A9, B1, B7 ($10,500.00), C1 to C5, C9 to C12, C19, C31 to C34, C40, C42, C44, D1, D2, D9, S1, S7, SP2 to SP8, Sp10, SP12, SP14, SP16, SP18, W1. ATTACHMENTS

1. Location plan 2. Plans 3. SEPP No.1 objection 4. Objection letters


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D130


ITEM NO : 11 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NO : 07/1027-1 PROPOSAL : DEMOLITION OF THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE

DWELLING AND TO CARRY OUT ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS. TO DEMOLISH THE CARPORT, CONSTRUCT A NEW FRONT FENCE, GARAGES AND AN ELEVATED WALKWAY, TREE REMOVAL AND INSTALL A RAINWATER TANK – S.96 MODIFICATION.

PROPERTY : 29 WYBALENA ROAD, HUNTERS HILL APPLICANT : ANGELIA KALLINICOS OWNER : MRS A KALLINICOS DATE LODGED : 28 APRIL 2008 BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REPORTING OFFICER : KERRY SMITH FILE : 1765/29 & DA07/1027

1. SUMMARY

Reasons for Report

The original development application, which involved a SEPP No.1 objection, was considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting dated 29 October 2007. Therefore, this modification proposal is required to be considered again by Council.

Submissions

Three (3) submissions were received as a result of notification of the proposal setting out the concerns of height, overshadowing, bulk, tree removal and garden treatment.

Issues

Residents’ concerns relate to matters including loss of solar access, building bulk, land fill, height breach, safety and tree removal.

Recommendation



2. it complies with the relevant planning objectives contained in Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1 and Development Control Plan No.15.

3. it will not have adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining properties


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D131


and, as such, is justified. A SEPP No.1 objection was lodged with the original development application in relation to ‘height’ and ‘garden area’ non-compliance. No further change from the development standards is sought as a result of this S.96 application.


Original development approval Dwelling House Alterations It is proposed to carry out internal and external alterations and additions as well as minor demolition to the existing part two-storey and part single-storey dwelling house, demolish the existing carport and construct additions to the detached garage/games room building towards the front of the site and construct a new detached garage towards the front of the site along the south-eastern boundary. The dwelling will be altered by way of the following works:- Lower Ground Floor Remove part of the existing side chimney plus some windows and brick up openings and provide new doors, demolish WC and construct new stairs. It is proposed to use that part of the existing building for a study, rumpus room with bar, laundry and bathroom with a partly enclosed and covered rear deck facing the water. Ground floor Demolition of all internal walls and the rear wall and remove existing windows and brick up or replace with new windows or doors and use that part of the dwelling for a bedroom with ensuite, a WC, living / dining room, kitchen and family room. The family and living rooms will open onto a large, full width, covered balcony 3.3 metres deep at the rear. First floor To erect a first floor L-shaped addition, with a flat roof, to be used for three (3) bedrooms (one with a walk-in ‘robe and ensuite), a laundry and bathroom. A large, full width balcony 4.414 metres deep, with a pergola over, will be constructed off the two rear bedrooms and a small open balcony 1.8 metres wide x 900mm deep will be constructed off the front bedroom. Attached Garage Alterations The pitched roof of the existing two-storey garage / guesthouse along the north-west side of the site will be removed and replaced with a flat metal roof. The roller shutter garage door will be removed from the lower southern elevation and replaced with wall and double doors. The lower floor of the existing building will be used as a study with small balconies 2.0 metres wide x 1.0 metres deep being installed on the south-west and south-east elevations. The front section of the building will be used as a double garage with a roller door facing the street. The upper section of the existing building to be retained (behind the garage) will be used as a games room and will have a small balcony 2.0 metres wide x 1.0 metres deep to be installed on the south-west (rear) elevation of such part of the building. The work involved will be removal of some existing doors and windows and the provision of new doors and windows. It will also involve removal of the weatherboard cladding and its replacement with fibre cement sheeting.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D132


New Detached Garage A detached, flat roofed, single car garage will be constructed along the south-east boundary of the site separated from the double garage by a 2.67 meters wide entry to the front of the dwelling house. It will have an automatic roller door facing the street. Landscaping Removal of one large (Deodar Cedar) and two smaller trees at the front of the property. The concrete area around the existing swimming pool will be covered with timber decking. An L-shaped courtyard will be provided between the front of the dwelling and the rear of the garage structure. At the front of the site will be new steps and path along the north-west side of the site with two large landscaped areas being provided to the south-east of the new steps and either side of the driveway. A 5,000 litre underground rainwater tank will be installed at the front of the dwelling. A new retaining wall will be constructed along the north-western boundary from the double garage to the street alignment. The fence at the rear of the existing swimming pool will be replaced and additional steps added to those at the north-west of the pool. Front Fence To construct a rendered and painted masonry front fence with pedestrian and vehicular gates. The piers will be 2.0 metres high and the solid infill panels will be 1.75 metres high. The side return fences will be stepped and a maximum of 1.8 metres in height. See details under Property history for the results of the last development approval. The schedule 1 conditions for the deferred commencement approval are set out below:-. 1. Construction details and a construction work plan being submitted to Council for

approval of the demolition work and the means to ensure that the remaining structure will be able to be supported and retained during such demolition and construction thus establishing the practicality and BCA compliance of such building work.

2. The ‘selected balustrading’ as shown on the plans at the rear of ground floor level 3

being provided as a simple palisade type set of metal panels being painted in a dark colour, not being glazed and complying with the provisions of the BCA. Such details being provided to Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

3. Amended plans being submitted to Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate, reducing the amount of glazing to the south-western elevation of the proposed building, in order to satisfy the Development Control Plan by reducing the large expanse of glass and introducing more solidity into the frame stock of the glazing.

4. The front fence and gates being deleted from the development as the predominant fencing in this part of the street is low stone walls similar to that existing on the subject premises.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D133


5. Retention of the existing driveway to preserve the mature trees at the front of the site.

6. The new garages as shown on the plans being deleted from the development and

replaced with landscaping. 7. A new three (3) car garage structure, with the doors facing south, being designed

and located forward of the existing two-storey building towards the front of the site and towards the northern side boundary, with vehicular access to such new building being from the southern side of the site. The front elevation of the new garage, as visible from the street, being designed to portray a domestic style of architecture to Council’s satisfaction.

S.96(1A) Modification Proposal

• Provision of a double garage to the northern boundary and a single space carport to the southern boundary in the same location as the original consent requirements.

• Increase the existing landscaping area at the front of the site from that originally applied for.

• Remove the large Deodar Cedar tree from the front of the property • Alter the size and location of windows and glass doors on the western elevation to upper

floor level 2 • Relocate the staircase to the southern end of ground floor level 3 • Alter the size and location of windows and glass doors on the western elevation of lower

ground floor level 4 • Provide for an arched balcony treatment to the western elevation of ground floor level 3.

The applicant requests that condition No.1 of the schedule 1 set is to be set out as a special condition of consent and not part of the deferred commencement. The applicant seeks the deletion of schedule 1 conditions 2, 3 and 4. 3. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND LOCALITY

The subject site is known as No.29 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill, and is located on the south-western side of the street, between Woolwich Road and Fern Road. It has a waterfront to Parramatta River. The site is irregular in shape with a frontage of 11.43m and a site area of 1,062sqm. It has a steep slope down to the river at the rear. The subject site currently contains an existing part single-storey and part two–storey masonry and tiled dwelling with a swimming pool at the rear. There is a detached two-storey, part single-storey brick/weatherboard and tiled roof building forward of the house used for a ‘guesthouse’ and garage. At the front of the site is a multi-space carport. At the rear of the site is a timber jetty, deck and boat ramp. Surrounding development consists of mostly two-storey to three-storey dwellings. The site is located within the conservation area. However, it is not heritage listed nor does it adjoin a heritage listed item.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D134


4. PROPERTY HISTORY

A preliminary consultation meeting was held with the DCU on 20 September 2006 to consider proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling. Detailed advice was given as to careful treatment of the elevation to the river, removing the three-storey appearance, stepping back the upper level, garden area, side setbacks, glazing to the waterfront elevation, garage elevation treatment and various general matters to be properly documented. Deferred commencement development consent was granted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 29 October 2007. Four (4) of the schedule 1 conditions as generally referred to above were as follows:- 1. Construction details and a construction work plan being submitted to Council for


2. The ‘selected balustrading’ as shown on the plans at the rear of ground floor level 3

being provided as a simple palisade type set of metal panels being painted in a dark colour, not being glazed and complying with the provisions of the BCA. Such details being provided to Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate.

3. Amended plans being submitted to Council prior to release of the Construction Certificate, reducing the amount of glazing to the south-western elevation of the proposed building, in order to satisfy the Development Control Plan by reducing the large expanse of glass and introducing more solidity into the frame stock of the glazing.

4. The front fence and gates being deleted from the development as the predominant fencing in this part of the street is low stone walls similar to that existing on the subject premises.

5. Retention of the existing driveway to preserve the mature trees at the front of the

site. 6. The new garages as shown on the plans being deleted from the development and

replaced with landscaping. 7. A new three (3) car garage structure, with the doors facing south, being designed

and located forward of the existing two-storey building towards the front of the site and towards the northern side boundary, with vehicular access to such new building being from the southern side of the site. The front elevation of the new garage, as visible from the street, being designed to portray a domestic style of architecture to Council’s satisfaction.

5. STATUTORY CONTROLS 5.1 Relevant Statutory Instruments Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 Hunter’s Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1 Zone Residential 2(a2) Conservation Area: Yes Foreshore Scenic Protection Area: Yes


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D135


State Environmental Policies: Yes-SEPP No.1 Regional Environmental Policies: Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 Listed Heritage Item: No Adjoins Heritage Item: No Contributory Building No Adjoins Contributory Building Yes Vicinity of heritage item Yes Bushfire Prone: No Integrated Development: No 6. PLAN/POLICY CONTROLS Development Control Plan No.15 – Residential Development 7. REFERRALS 7.1 Comments from external Approval Bodies Not applicable. 7.2 Health & Building Not applicable. 7.3 Heritage The original development application was referred to Council’s Heritage Adviser who advised as follows: Heritage Status: Within Conservation Area No 1, foreshore location. Nearest Sch. 6 item is 23 Wybalena Rd. Statement of Heritage Impact: by Historyworks- O.K. Comments : I have reviewed the drawings date stamped 23 March, 2007 and reiterate my previous concerns as follows: The proposed alterations and additions are extensive, but generally of a relatively restrained and low visual impact nature. The proposed gates and fence to Wybalena Road should be redesigned to be less mannered and of greater transparency (or substantially lesser height) to allow views from Wybalena Rd out to the Parramatta River. It appears ‘Tuscanesque’ columns are proposed for the canopy and pergola supports- more detail of the columns should be provided to properly assess their nature- generally such classicist elements are resisted, though this depends on the overall design and whether their use would verge on the pastiche. It also appears the balustrade is intended to be cast “lace”- this would appear to be at odds with both the design of the building and resistance to pastiche/ historicist elements. Flat roofs are generally not supported, unless there are mitigating circumstances such as the preservation of views from properties adjacent/ behind the proposal. In this case there would appear to be no analysis of or justification for the proposed roof form.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D136


There may also be scope for the building to be legible as a three-storey structure in some views from the Parramatta River- the relative setting back of the levels will reduce this affect to some extent. Recommendation: Seek design amendments to simplify the building and clarify the rationale behind the need for flat roofs. Based on subsequent discussions with the applicant and their consultants, it was considered reasonable at that time to accept the proposal for an approval from a heritage aspect. Some of the Schedule 1 conditions were imposed to generally give compliance to the Heritage Adviser’s requirements. The amended plans do not contravene the requirements of the Heritage Adviser’s earlier requirements relative to the development consent granted utilising such input. 7.4 Public Works and Infrastructure The amended plans of the proposal were referred to Council’s Assistant Design and Development Engineer who raised no objection to the proposal subject to a condition of consent. 7.5 Landscaping/Trees Officer The landscape plan was referred to Council’s Landscape Consultant who raised no issues with the amended proposal subject to new condition No. 43, which is incorporated in the recommendation. The issue in this case is the proposed removal of the Deodar Cedar from the front of the site. The condition of that tree was addressed in a report from an arborist who has described the tree as a poor specimen with a limited life expectancy. The above matters were then referred to Council’s Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator for an inspection and a report. The advice thus received was that the tree is reasonable for removal and should be replaced with a series of suitable advanced species suitable to the area. This, as stated above, is covered by condition No.43 in the recommendation. 8. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings: 9. STATE INSTRUMENTS/LEGISLATION 9.1 SEPPs State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 – Development Standards

The non-compliance with the development standards of height and garden area was covered in detail in the original DA report. 9.2 REPs Sydney Regional Environmental Plan (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005

The modifications to the development are considered to comply with the aims of the plan as well as the stated planning principles relating to the catchment, foreshores and waterways area and heritage conservation.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D137


9.3 Other Legislation Not applicable. 10. HUNTERS HILL LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN NO. 1 10.1 Aims and Objectives of Hunters Hill Local Envi ronmental Plan No.1 and Zone The proposal is permissible with consent under Zone 2(a2) and complies with the relevant statutory controls of Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No.1. 10.2 Site Area Requirements Not applicable to this assessment. 10.3 Residential flat buildings and low-rise multi- unit housing-density and garden

area controls Not applicable to this assessment. 10.4 Height of Buildings No change to height. 10.5 Garden Area There will be no change to the proposed garden area as accepted in the original application. 10.6 Integrated Housing Development Not applicable. 10.7 Foreshore building lines There is a 15 metre foreshore building line set under LEP No.1. The development complies with this development standard, which includes some rebuilding of the rear deck/verandah within the building line area. 10.8 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area The subject site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. There will be no substantive change from the original approval with conditions applied. However, assessment is still required in accordance with clause 18A of LEP No.1. Clause 18A states:-

The Council may not grant consent under the Act pursuant to an application to carry out development on land within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, being that the area shown by hatching on the map marked “Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 14 – Heritage Conservation” unless it has made an assessment of:

(a) The appearance and visual quality of the proposed development when viewed from the waterway; and

(b) the impact of the proposed development of the view toward the waterway from public roads and from public reserves or from land within Zone No. 6(a) or 6 (b).


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D138


The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. The proposed development will be visible from the waterway but will not provide for a substantial change from the mainly two-storey effect of the existing dwelling when viewed from the Parramatta River. Accordingly, the development would not detrimentally affect the visual amenity of the foreshore. 10.9 Other Special Clauses/Development Standa rds Not applicable. 11. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS No relevant draft amendments pertaining to this application. 12. DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS PLANS 12.1 Compliance Table Residential Development Contr ol Plan No.15 Control Required / Permissible Proposed Compliance Site area 900sqm 1,078sqm Yes Garden area 60% 40.6% No – see SEPP 1YesHeight 2 storeys

7.2 metres 3 storeys 8.0 metres

No – see SEPP 1No - see SEPP 1

Front setback Predominant building line

14.2 metres Yes - As existing

Side setback 1.5 metres 2.2m / 0m

Yes / No

Rear setback 6.0 metres 15.0m/20m Yes Foreshore building line 15 metres 15.0m/20m Yes Planning Policy –All Development The proposal complies with the relevant objectives, design parameters and preferred design elements under Part 3 of Development Control Plan No 15. Heritage Conservation Areas See under Part 7.3 ‘Heritage’ above. Foreshore Scenic Protection Area See under this heading of Part 10.9 above. Visually Prominent Sites Not applicable. Height There will be no change in height of the approved development. Front, Side and Rear Setbacks There will be no change in the setbacks from the original application.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D139


Privacy The proposed development is not likely to reduce the privacy of the residents of adjoining premises. Garden Area This does not change from the approved development, which relied on the Council upholding the SEPP No.1 objection. Solar Access The shadow diagrams indicate that there will be substantially less overshadowing of the glass roof areas of the dwelling to the south due to the demolition of the large existing carport at the front of the subject site. In relation to the proposed single carport to the south of the subject site, the minor mid-winter additional shadow it will create will be substantially less than the existing shadowing which will be removed due to the demolition of the existing three (3) car carport at the front of the subject site. Further, the residents to the south will also benefit from the detrimental shadow effects of the Cedar tree at the front of the site, which is recommended for removal as part of this application. As a result of the above matters, it is considered that the latest plans give effective compliance to the DCP requirements. To further assist Council in this matter, photographs taken of the area on 19 June 2008 are attached. Views No views of adjoining residents will be lost as a result of these works. Car Parking Complies. Garages and Carports Complies as requested for approval as discussed in this report. Fences The applicant has submitted amended details for fencing along the street alignment. This shows a series of piers approx.1.4 metres high with infill metal panels and gate 1.2 metres high. In support of this part of the amendments, it is stated by the consultant for the applicant in the SoEE “This means that the proposed fence allows view corridors from the street to the property in accordance with Council’ Development Control Plan”. In this case, however, it is recommended that the existing front fence be retained in order to better maintain the streetscape of this part of Wybalena Road.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D140


Part B – Medium Density Development

Not applicable.


Not applicable.


The proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the residents of adjoining properties or of this part of the Wybalena Road streetscape, subject to conditions. It appears that the proposal is demolishing the majority of the existing dwelling and retaining some of the external walls, which are three (3) storeys in height, so that the proposal can retain the three (3) storey height of the existing building. However, if these existing walls were to be accidentally demolished during the demolition or construction stages, the building cannot be rebuilt to its existing three (3) stories height, as the development would be for a new dwelling and must comply with the provisions of Clause 15 of LEP No.1. As discussed in the body of the report, solar access in many ways be improved and will in fact comply with the objectives of that part of the DCP. Further, the provision of a carport in place of a garage structure on the southern side of the site will effectively open up views of the dwelling and the water from the front of the site. The concern with the above is that even if the demolition is approved as applied for, it would be problematic that total demolition for practical building purposes does not result. Hence the pre-requisite for clarification (and possibly change) prior to the development consent being able to be acted upon. As the interior of the house will be substantially demolished, as will the roof, the majority of the front and rear external walls, it could be determined that the development will be a new building based on the Land & Environment Court’s planning principle that where more than 50%of the existing external fabric. Therefore, with regard to schedule 1 condition No.1, it is considered that such condition remain as a deferred commencement one and not a special condition of consent due to the extensive nature of the demolition of the existing structure. With relation to schedule 1 condition Nos. 2 & 3, the amended plans as submitted are considered to have satisfied these conditions. They can therefore be deleted from the original resolved decision of Council. The applicant has submitted amended details for fencing along the street alignment. This shows a series of piers approx.1.4 metres high with infill metal panels and gate 1.2 metres high. In support of this part of the amendments, it is stated in the SoEE “This means that the proposed fence allows view corridors from the street to the property in accordance with Council’ Development Control Plan”. Therefore, with regard to schedule 1 condition No.4, it is considered that this condition should be retained to preserve that part of the streetscape. This is notwithstanding the fact that the amended fence design gives compliance to the DCP provisions for fencing generally.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D141


With regard to schedule 1 condition No.5, it is considered that this condition which effectively required the retention of the large Deodar Cedar tree at the front of the site can be deleted based on the arborist’s report and then on advice from Council’s consultant landscape architect and the Parks & Landscape Co-ordinator. In relation to schedule 1 condition Nos.6 & 7 as set out in detail under part and that part of the application for the new double garage and single carport, it is stated in the report for the S.96 submission that “Given the substantial fall of the land from the street to the rear, these structures/car spaces are generally presented below the street level with the roof of the structures being fundamentally below the footpath level.” “The setbacks off the street mean they are not visible elements to the street.” “Consistent with other developments in the street”. “there is no direct impact from a streetscape perspective.” It is therefore considered that that part of the amended proposal is suitable for approval and those conditions be deleted from the original consent. As stated within the body of the report, subject to conditions, the proposal would satisfy the objectives of the Development Control Plan No.15. There would be no undue impact upon the natural and built environment within the vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed works. Furthermore, there would be no detrimental social and economic impacts to the residents of the locality as a result of the proposed works. 14. SUBMISSIONS

The proposed development was notified in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for a period of ten (10) working days commencing on 27 March 2007. Within the specified time period three (3) four (4) submissions were received.

The amendments to the plans, as received in the meantime, were of such minor effect in the reduction of the ceiling height at a section of the development to comply with the 7.2 metre height control.

NOTIFICATION REQUIRED YES NUMBER NOTIFIED 11 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED

Name & Address of Respondents


Sandra Rowell 31 Wybalena Road Hunters Hill

• Depth of proposed landfill • Bulk and visual impact of carport, metal

cladding and land infill to make a building somewhere between 5 and 6 metres higher than our ground level

• Disregard for the covenant which limits fence height to 3 foot 6 inches (approx. 1.1 metres) above natural ground height

• Safety issue with a large drop of approx. 3 metres along the southern side of the carport

• Amenity issue of headlights into our property as the proposed new ground level is close to our ceiling height


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D142


• Overshadowing issues with an additional 6.4 metres of garaging directly along our northern boundary

• No overshadowing diagrams have been provided

• Removal of a healthy large tree • Reduction in garden area with additional

hard paving required. Mrs D.Solden 25c Wybalena Road Hunters Hill

• The owners now want to demolish these trees so I am objecting again

• Varying the garage location is another item which I object to as this creates the problem with the tree

Cynthia Terry 5 Ferdinand Street Hunters Hill

• I believe nearly all of the conditions imposed in the deferred DA are being altered and object to this

• Restate my objection to the proposed removal of the large tree at the front of the property

The main issues of concern outlining the original objections are discussed below:-

• Depth of proposed landfill

Comment: Landfill is difficult to avoid in this case due to the steep slope of the land. It is considered in the circumstances that excessive filling will not be a result of this development

• Bulk and visual impact of carport

The effects of this part of the amended development are covered in detail under part 13 above. That is, being a single car open structure with a flat roof setback substantially from the street alignment, it could not be refused on the basis of excessive bulk and unreasonable visual impact.

• Disregard for the covenant which limits fence heigh t to 3 foot 6 inches (approx. 1.1 metres) above natural ground height

Comment: Setting aside the issue concerning the validity of the height covenant for the fencing, the recommendation is to retain the existing front fence in accordance with the original decision of Council. The original schedule 1 condition No.4 is again recommended for its retention thus meaning that the front fence will not be demolished and rebuilt in a different form. In any case, the LEP overrides a private covenant. • Safety issue with a large drop of approx. 3 metres along the southern side of

the carport Comment: This matter of safety is one effectively covered under the BCA. Any safety issue relating to works on the common boundary would be a private matter under the Dividing Fences Act. • Amenity issue of headlights into our property as th e proposed new ground

level is close to our ceiling height


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D143


Comment: It is considered that any direct light from motor vehicle headlights entering or exiting from the garage or carport would be screened by the dividing fences in those locations. Again, this would be a private matter between individual land owners involved. • Overshadowing issues with an additional 6.4 metres of garaging directly along

our northern boundary Comment: The garaging referred to is in fact an open carport to be sited adjacent to a metal dividing fence. The carport will cast little additional shadow to the premises to the south over and above the boundary fencing at that location. The proposed alterations and additions will not create significant additional mid-winter shadowing of the adjoining premises, as shown on the shadow diagrams. This matter under DCP No.15 is addressed in detail under part 12.1 above. That is, the mid-winter shadow effects are considered to be in compliance with the DCP provisions. • No overshadowing diagrams have been provided Comment: There were shadow diagrams submitted with the original application which was publicly exhibited and approved by Council. These shadows for all intents and purposes will be applicable to the carport proposed for the southern side as compared to the fully enclosed garage structure. They were, as a matter of course, available for perusal on request by adjoining and nearby land owners. The effects of the shadows are addressed in detail under part 12.1 above. • Removal of a large healthy tree

Comment: A condition to be satisfied for the deferred commencement provisions is the retention of the significant Cedar tree at the front of the site. Based on details as set out in part 7.5 above, it is considered reasonable to permit such tree to be removed and be replaced with suitable replacements as set out in new condition No.43 of the recommendation.

• Reduction in garden area with additional hard pavin g required

Comment: There will be no reduction in garden area nor increase in the hard paved area from the original plans as submitted to Council.

• The owners now want to demolish these trees so I am objecting again Comment: This issue is addressed above under this part of the report. • Varying the garage location is another item which I object to as this creates

the problem with the tree Comment: The location of the garage and carport as proposed do not create a problem for the trees on the site. The issue of the tree removal is addressed above in this part of the report. • I believe nearly all of the conditions imposed in t he deferred DA are being

altered and object to this Comment: This is a correct statement and the applicant has full right to seek deletion of such schedule 1 conditions with the justification being submitted as part of the submission. Whilst there is reasonable justification for the deletion of some of these conditions, not all of the conditions have been recommended for such deletion.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D144


• Restate my objection to the proposed removal of the large tree at the front of the property

Comment: This same matter has been addressed above under this part of the report.

CONCLUSION – THE PUBLIC INTEREST

It is considered that the mid-winter shadow effects of the amendments and the conditions as set out in the recommendation will be such that they will comply with the general requirements of DCP No.15. As set out in detail under part 13 above and in the recommendation below, schedule 1 condition Nos. 1 and 4 are to be retained and condition Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 can now be deleted. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C and Section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Hunters Hill Local Environmental Plan No. 1. For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposed modifications in the main will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents or on the streetscape, it will be substantially the same development. Accordingly, the modification sought under S.96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is recommended in part only for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget or forward estimates. RECOMMENDATION

That the application under section 96(1A) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 to modify the consent of Development Application No. 07-1027 for the demolition work and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, car parking, rainwater tank, retaining walls, fencing, tree removal and landscaping at No.29 Wybalena Road, Hunters Hill Point, be approved , with ‘Schedule 1’ conditions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 being deleted and “schedule 1’ conditions 1 and 4 being retained, which read as follows:- 1. Construction details and a construction work plan being submitted to Council for


4. The front fence and gates being deleted from the development as the predominant

fencing in this part of the street is low stone walls similar to that existing on the subject premises.

And Special Condition No.1 (‘A2’) being amended and new condition 43 being inserted to read as follows:- 1. The development being carried out in accordance with plans prepared by Owen &

Gilsenan Architects to be submitted to Council for stamping and subsequent release, based on drawing Nos.DA01 to DA04 and DA07 issue D dated 8 February 2008, as received by Council on 28 April 2008 and Nos.DA05, DA06 & DA08 dated 27 August 2007 as received by Council on 19 September 2007 and landscape plan prepared by iScape Landscape architecture drawing No.01.07/001 No.1 dated


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D145


January 2007 as received by Council on 23 March 2007, except where amended by conditions of this consent).

43. Supply and plant five (5) advanced replacement trees in 100 litre pots adjacent to

the Wybalena Road entrance

ATTACHMENTS 1. Locality Map 2. Proposed Plans 3. Letters submitted to Council


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D146


ITEM NO : 12

SUBJECT : LEGAL MATTERS

BUSINESS PROGRAM : DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

FILE : 505/01

Appeals

Status reports in relation to recent or pending appeals are attached. FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report. RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D147


ITEM NO : 13

SUBJECT : DELEGATED AUTHORITY


REPORTING OFFICER : STEVE KOUREPIS

FILE : 200/10

Development Application No. 08/1051 Zone 3(a) Construction Certificate No. No application Notification No objection Applicant Quanh Diep Value $4000.00 Premises Shop 3, 203 Victoria Rd,

Gladesville Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) Class 6 & 10(b) Date lodged 26.05.08 Assessing Officer John Bruscino Determination Date 19.06.08 Proposal Change of Use – Beauty Salon Determination Approved subject to conditions

Development Application No. DA08/1015 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. CC08/7017 Notification Yes Applicant Ron and Barbara Hardaker Value $120,000 Premises 20 Auburn Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 70% Classification (BCA) 1a, 10a Date lodged 14.02.2008 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 19.06.2008 Proposal Demolition of garage and construction of carport, and extension of existing

deck Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA2008/1028 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant John Won Value $295,000 Premises 40 Batemans Road,

Gladesville Garden Area 62%

Classification (BCA) 1a & 10a Date lodged 4.04.2008 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 23.06.2008 Proposal Alterations & additions Determination Approval


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D148


Development Application No. DA08/1001 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Peter Bruce Sheldrick Value $165,000 Premises 41 Barons Crescent, Hunters

Hill Garden Area 50%

Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 7.01.08 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 24.04.08 Proposal First floor addition, rear addition to dwelling and carport Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA08/1034 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Tim Clucas Value $35,000 Premises 42 Bonnefin Rd, Hunters Hill Garden Area 54.5% Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 16.04.08 Assessing Officer John Bruscino Determination Date 27.06.08 Proposal Alterations & additions Determination Approval

Development Application No. 07-1139-2 Zone Residential 2(a1)

Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Matthew Doyle Value $180,000 Premises 6 Abbey Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 51.8% Classification (BCA) 1a, 10a & 10b Date lodged 24 June 2008 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination Date 2 July 2008 Proposal Partial demolition and alterations and additions to dwelling house including

mezzanine / loft additions plus garage & carport, swimming pool, rainwater tanks, front fence, tree removal & landscaping – S.96 for amended Basix Certificate

Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA08/1009 Zone 2(a3) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Good Manors Residential

Gardens Value $65,000

Premises 3 Figtree Road, Hunters Hill Garden Area 53% Classification (BCA) 1a & 10a Date lodged 30.01.08 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 25.06.08 Proposal Covered timber verandah, cabana fiberglass spa Determination Approval


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D149


Development Application No. 06-1187-1 Zone Residential2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Domus Homes Value $450,000 Premises 16 Aston Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 51.1% Classification (BCA) 1a & 10b Date lodged 16 May 2008 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith

Senior Development Officer Determination Date

10 July 2008

Proposal Alterations and additions to dwelling house and two storey additions plus swimming pool/spa, landscaping and rainwater tank – S.96 modification


Development Application No. 07/1024-1 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Quinn O’Hanlon Architects Value $95,000 Premises 55 Blaxland Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 57.6% Classification (BCA) 1a & 10a Date lodged 18.01.08 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 7.07.08 Proposal S96 - Ground floor alterations and additions to dwelling and garage plus

deck of house and rainwater tanks. Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA07/1161-1 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Tania Cornish Value $275,000 Premises 14 Milling Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 52% Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 16.05.08 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination Date 3.07.08 Proposal S96 - Alterations & Additions Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA06/1015-1 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Darryl Mete Value $90,000 Premises 6 Makinson Street, Gladesville Garden Area 50% Classification (BCA) 1(a) Date lodged 26.05.08 Assessing Officer John Bruscino Determination Date 30.06.08 Proposal S96 – to delete the storage locker area adjacent to the southeastern side

of the existing carport Determination Approval

Development Application No. DA06-1151-1 Zone 2(a2) Construction Certificate No. CC2007/7071 Notification Nil submissions Applicant Mr Julian Pimblett Cost of Works $120,000.00 Premises 4 Dick Street, Henley Garden Area 55.1% Classification (BCA) 1a and 10a Date lodged 6 May 2008 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith

Acting Development Assessment Officer

Determination Date

4 July 2008

Proposal Demolition of carport, alterations and additions to dwelling including basement garage, pool fencing and landscaping – S.96 application



Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D150


Development Application No. DA 08/1032 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Lisa Lewin Value $185,000 Premises 61 Downing Place, Gladesville Garden Area 58% Classification (BCA) 1a Date lodged 11.04.08 Assessing Officer Shahram Zadgan Determination

Date 02.06.08

Proposal Alterations & additions Determination Deferred Commencement - Approval

Development Application No. DA 08-1022 (prop. File 1020/17)

Zone Special Uses (School) 5(a)

Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Hunters Hill Public School Value $43,700 Premises 17 Alexandra Street,

Hunters Hill Garden Area N/A

Classification (BCA) 9 Date lodged 19 March 2008 Assessing Officer Kerry Smith Determination

Date 9 July 2008

Proposal To erect a shade structure between the school hall and the Arts & Crafts building in the primary school grounds – Crown Application


Development Application No. DA-038/1997 Zone 2(a1) Construction Certificate No. N/A Notification Yes Applicant Keith Smith Value $35,000 Premises 38 Makinson Street, Gladesville Garden Area N/A Classification (BCA) 1(a) & 10(a) Date lodged 30.04.08 Assessing Officer John Bruscino Determination Date 16.07.08 Proposal S96 – to delete the folding doors in the lounge/living room and to delete the

window in the living room and install a round highlight window on the Western elevation



Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 D151


FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.

Development Application No. 06/1013 (1) Zone Residential 2(a1)

Construction Certificate No. 07/7019 Notification Yes – No submissions

Applicant Michael Fritz Value $5,000 Premises 22 Abbey Street, Hunters Hill Garden Area 68% Classification (BCA) 10 (b) Date lodged 31/01/08 Assessing Officer John Bruscino Determination

Date 11/07/08

Proposal Remove existing temporary timber fence and erect a brick/timber fence and relocate driveway – Section 96

Determination Approved

E

Public Works & Infrastructure

E – Public Works & Infrastructure

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Hunters Hill Memorial Policy 1 2. Tree Preservation Order – Approvals/Refusals 2 3. Importation of Savannah Cats into Australia 12 .......................................................................

David Innes MANAGER

PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

REPORT OF PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE

Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 E1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : HUNTERS HILL MEMORIAL POLICY

BUSINESS PROGRAM : PUBLIC AMENITY

REPORTING OFFICER : DAVID INNES

FILE : 200/12

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT This report is submitted to Council for consideration of a memorial policy. BACKGROUND Council has received a number of requests over recent years for the installation of seats in memory of family members. Several requests have been granted, for example, former Mayor, Clr Bruce Lucas, who has a seat located in Clarke’s Point Reserve adjacent to the Sailing Club. However, the requests have evolved to the point where a set of guidelines needs to be adopted for clarity. The guidelines essentially involve: 1. The type, style and location of the memorial; and 2. Who is eligible for a memorial. The criteria for eligibility are listed in section 4 of the Policy. A panel consisting of the Mayor, General Manager and Manager Public Works & Infrastructure will determine any application submitted. The policy sets out details of the process. PROPOSAL It is proposed that Council adopt the Draft Hunters Hill Memorial Policy. This will set clear guidelines for the community and allow appropriate and sympathetic memorials to members of the Hunters Hill community who have made significant contributions to the community. FINANCIAL IMPACT There will be minimal impact on Council’s finances as the costs of the memorials are to be met by the applicants.

RECOMMENDATION That Council adopt the Hunters Hill Memorial Policy as set out in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS

Hunters Hill Memorial Policy




ITEM NO : 2

SUBJECT : TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - APPROVALS / REFUSALS

BUSINESS PROGRAM : RECREATION & PARKS - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : PHIL SUTTON

FILE : 785/03

Address Date of

approval Work Requested and Reason Given

7-9 Stanley Road Hunters Hill (1195/10)

24 Apr 08 Chinese Elm (located adjacent to front fence) – Small specimen in poor condition. Application for removal is approved on condition a suitable replacement tree with a minimum mature height of at least 10 meters is planted.

Former Gladesville Hospital Victoria Road Hunters Hill (1720-20-62)

1 May 08 Tree 1 Camphorlaurel (located near Building 6). Tree in decline. Application for removal is approved Tree 2 and 3 Eucalyptus (located near Building 14). Tree 2 has a bracket fungal infection. Application for removal is approved. Tree 3 is over mature and in decline. Application for removal is approved Tree 4,5,6 and 7 Silkyoaks (located near Building 15). Self seeded trees in inappropriate location. Application for removal is approved Tree 8 Camphorlaurel (located between buildings, near Building 48). Application for removal is approved Trees 9,10,11,12 and 13 Poplars . All are dead and dying. Application for removal is approved Tree 14 Silky oak (located adjacent to house). Tree is damaged structure of house. Application for removal is approved Tree 15 Robinia (near Building 41). Tree is dying. Application for removal is approved Trees 16,17,18,19 and 20. Figs (located near Punt Road). Small trees which have self seeded on heritage stone walls. Application for removal is approved Note: Site has extensive landscaping and trees

66 Barons Crescent Hunters Hill (1065-66)

1 May 2008 Eucalyptus (located next to front fence). Double tree which has some basal damage and is in poor condition, also damaging wall and paving. Application for removal is approved .




Address Date of approval

Work Requested and Reason Given

17 Alexandra Street Hunters Hill (1020-17)

7 May 08 Eucalyptus (located in garden bed). Tree is dead. Recommend removal).

71 Huntleys Point Road Huntleys Point (1335-71)

9 May 08 Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) (located top wall, overhanging waterfront level). Note: This small tree is located on the boundary between 71 Huntley Point Rd and 69 Huntley Point Rd. The applicant is to provide Council with a letter from the neighbour confirming their consent for tree removal.

45 Abigail Street Hunters Hill (1010-45)

13 May 08 Eucalyptus spp. (located backyard) Tree is in severe decline with extensive deadwood and less than 20% remaining leaf cover. Application for removal is approved. Site has good tree population.

3 Mary Street Hunters Hill (1480-3)

Eucalyptus spp. (located front left side of main access) - Tree is in decline with extensive deadwood and less than 20% remaining leaf cover. Application for removal is approved. The consent for removal is conditional to a replacement species being planted with a minimum mature height of 12 meters and supplied as an advanced specimen (min 75L). Species including Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) and Eucalyptus piperita (Sydney Peppermint) are regarded as suitable replacement species.

61 Ryde Road Hunters Hill (1635-61

Peppercorn Tree (Schinus areira) (located RHS) - Tree is in decline with extensive deadwood. Application for removal is approved. The consent for removal is conditional to a replacement species being planted with a minimum mature height of 8 metres.

2A Fern Street Hunters Hill (1225-2A

15 May 08 Cock’s Comb Coral Tree (Erythrina crista-galli) (located front garden) - Tree has extensive deadwood and has lost a primary limb. It is also causing structural damage to garage floor. Application for removal is approved conditional to a replacement tree being planted. The replacement tree should have a minimum mature height of 6 metres.


Cocos Palms (Syagrus romanzoffiana) x 3 (front fence line) - Palms contribute little to the landscape as their canopy is submerged within the canopy of the Fig on Alexandra Street. Species is regarded as an environmental weed. Application for removal is approved.




Address Date of

approval Work Requested and Reason Given

18 Gale Street Woolwich (1265-18)

Jacaranda (Jacarandra mimosifolia) (located rear lawn behind sculpture) - Sucker has a severe lean and has previously been braced. Tree is a poor specimen and is showing signs of decline, including sparse canopy cover. Application for removal is approved.

46 Alexandra Street Hunters hill (1020-46)

15 May 08 Liquidamber (Liquidambar styraciflua) (located back yard). Recommended crown thinning by 20% to clear gutters.

Recommended selective removal of lowest branch overhanging 44 Alexandra Street.

4 North Parade Hunters Hill (1540-4)

22 May 08 Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculatas) (located western boundary north side of house) - Tree is in state of decline with approximately 10% leaf cover concentrated on the outer most branches only. Application for removal approved. Consent for removal is conditional to a replacement canopy tree species with a minimum mature height of 12m being planted. Species including Angophora costata or Corymbia maculata are considered suitable replacement species

7 Batemans Road Gladesville 2111 (1070-7)

28 May 08 Magnolia sp. (Magnolia) (located in the rear of the property adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the house) - The Magnolia is proposed to be removed due to the proximity to the boundary. The tree is approximately 4m in height with a canopy spread of approximately 2.5m. The tree is positioned in between the house and timber boundary fence approximately 150mm from each structure, which is considered an inappropriate location. There are also several small (<10m) trees in the rear of the property. The removal of these trees should have a negligible impact on the amenity and canopy cover of the immediate area as the remaining trees will compensate for the loss of canopy cover. There is insufficient area for a replacement tree.

2 North Parade Hunters Hill (1540-2)

29 May 08 Remove Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) clump of five (5) in rear yard northern boundary – Due to their mass planting the clump of five (5) palms presently contribute to the amenity of the immediate area. For this reason the five (5) palms should be retained. As part of the above mention DA and accompanying Landscape Plan, consideration by Council will be made for the removal of this clump of palms. As part of the Landscape Plan submission the applicant should outline a replacement plan for the clump of palms.






2 North Parade Hunters Hill (1540-2) (Continued)

Remove one (1) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located in rear yard western boundary due to it being considered an undesirable species. This palm provides a negligible contribution to the canopy cover and amenity of the immediate area. Remove one (1) Schinus molle var.areira (Peppercorn Tree) located in front of property south-western corner. There is a cavity at the base of the tree on the northern side. The cavity extends within approximately 50% of the main trunk. The tree is in poor health which suggests compartmentalisation of the extent decay is unlikely. The removal of this tree is conditional to a replacement species being planted with a minimum mature height of 8 metres. Remove one (1) Syzygium sp . (Lilly pilly) located in front yard southern boundary is in poor health and has poor structure due to the suppression by the Waterhousia floribunda (Weeping Lillypilly) and should be removed.

9 Glenview Crescent Hunters Hill (1295-9)

29 May 08 Remove one (1) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) located in front of the property. Removal of the Cocos Palm due to it being considered an undesirable species. This palm provides a negligible contribution to the canopy cover and amenity of the immediate area. This tree shall be replaced with one (1) Citrus sinensis (Orange) at a minimum size of a 50 Litre pot at the time of installation. Remove one (1) Corymbia citridora (Lemon-scented Gum tree) located in the rear of the property. The Lemon-scented Gum tree has had one co-dominant stem recently removed which has resulted in a reduction in the trees contribution to the canopy cover and amenity of the immediate area. This tree should be removed and replaced with a medium sized Australian native canopy tree that has the potential to reach a mature height of 12m. This tree shall be supplied in a 100 Litre container size.

2 Prince Edward Parade Hunters Hill (1580-2)

29 May 08 Macadamia “Macadamia tetraphylla ” (located Mid-western boundary) - The Macadamia has an included split in the co-dominant branch. Due to the size of the tree and the limited space between the building structure and the boundary fence, 30% of the canopy has previously been removed. The tree is considered inappropriate for the location. Approval to remove the Macadamia is granted on condition a replacement deciduous species is planted.






2 Prince Edward Parade Hunters Hill (1580-2) (Continued)

The applicant has proposed replacement species of either Nyssa sylvatica or Pyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’. Either of these species are considered acceptable and should be installed in a minimum pot size of 50 litres.

22 Woolwich Rd Hunters Hill (1760-22)

29 May 08 Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) - Located Side of driveway. The tree has recently experienced a primary branch failure resulting in the removal of two additional primary branches. The tree has an inclusion in the co-dominant stem and is in poor health which suggests compartmentalisation of the extent decay is unlikely. Application for removal is approved on condition a replacement species is planted. The replacement tree should be a canopy species with a minimum mature height of 10 metres. Species including Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum), Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) or Glochidion ferdinandi (Cheese Tree) are considered suitable replacement species. The tree should be supplied in a minimum pot size of 100 L.

St. Josephs College Mark Street Hunters Hill (1480-7 part 3)

2 June 08 Camphorlaurels x 3 (located grotto area off Ryde Road) - 1 metre trees with extensive areas of decay. Application for removal is approved on condition three suitable replacement trees with a metre height of at least 12 metres are planted.

11 Barons Crescent Hunters hill (1065-11)

2 June 08 Gum Tree (located rear right hand corner of yard) - Lightning struck 2/3 of the trunk height and went to ground, blowing out the side of the tree. Removal is approved.

17 King Street Hunters Hill (1405-17)

2 June 08 3 x Conifers are proposed to be removed to increase solar access into the rear of the property and dwelling. They are approximately 12m in height with canopy spreads of 6m. These trees provide a moderate contribution to the amenity and canopy cover in the immediate area. The removal of these conifers should not expose adjacent properties to loss of privacy. Removal of these conifers is approved. Consent for removal of the conifers is conditional to replacement species being planted to a mature height of 5 metres. Recommended replacement species include: Podocarpus elatus (Brown Pine) installed in a minimum of 50 litre pot size or Sysygium ‘Aussie Southern’ installed in a minimum of 50 litre pot size. These trees should be positioned in the rear of the property on the western boundary.






38 Makinson Street Gladesville (1445-38)

4 Jun 08 Peppercorn Tree (Located front yard) - The Peppercorn Tree has previously had one co-dominant branch removal and additional secondary pruning works. The canopy cover is reduced and the tree is in poor health. The front garden has two mature trees in a small space and the rear garden features good canopy cover. Application for removal is approved.

8 Avenue Road Hunters Hill (1060-8)

5 June 08 5 x Cocos Palms (located around pool) - Application for removal of (5) Cocos Palms approved due to it being considered an undesirable species. Due to limited space surrounding the pool, the palms should be replaced with a hedge species. A species of Camellia such as Camellia japonica would be ideally suited to the shady aspect in this garden. The hedge should be capable of being maintained to a minimum mature height of 2.5m.

34 Gladesville Road Hunters Hill (1285-34)

5 June 08 Chinese Tallowood (Located centre backyard) - Tree is in poor health with large amounts of deadwood. Application for removal is approved. Consent for removal is conditional to a replacement species being planted within the property boundaries, with a minimum mature height of 6m. Small flowering gums including Corymbia ‘Summer Red’ or Corymbia ‘Summer Beauty’ are considered suitable replacement species. The species should be installed in a minimum pot size of 50L.

2 Fryar Place Huntleys Cove (1257-2)

5 June 08 Eucalyptus, Spotted Gum - Both trees are young specimens with approximate heights of 5-6m. Whilst the species are considered appropriate for the location, they have been planted very close to the concrete curbing. Both trees are between 300mm and 500mm from the concrete curbing. Cracking of the curbing is already evident and will increase with time. Recommendation is for the removal of these trees and for their replacement northwest of their current location to a distance of 2.5m. The replacement species should be the same as is currently planted and should be supplied as minimum 200L specimens.

9 Hillcrest Avenue Gladesville (1320-9)

5 June 08 Jacaranda (located in the front garden) - The tree is severely leaning against the front fence. A section of the fence has already cracked and further structural damage is likely. There are two additional trees in the small front garden; one mature Eucalyptus spp. to 20m and one smaller Eucalyptus spp. to approximately 7m. Due to the incline of the Jacaranda the smaller Eucalyptus has been suppressed.






9 Hillcrest Avenue Gladesville (1320-9) (Continued)

The Jacaranda has also suppressed the growth of a Brush Box located in the nature strip. Application for removal of the Jacaranda is approved. There is sufficient existing canopy cover within the property boundary.


6 June 08 2 x Cupressus - The larger Cupressus has large amounts of included bark, deadwood and evidence of splitting. It has also suppressed the growth of the smaller species resulting in large sections of deadwood on one side. Application for removal is approved. The conifers currently provide valuable screening for the neighbouring property at No 10 Rooke St. Consent for removal is conditional to replacement screen planting being installed. Such screen planting should be capable of being maintained to a minimum mature height of 3m. Species including Syzygium ‘Aussie Southern’, Leptospermum petersonii ‘Copper Glow’ or Viburnum odoratissimum are recommended screening species for this location. The replacement species should be supplied in minimum container size of 100L.

8 Bonnefin Road Hunters Hill (1085-8)

6 June 08 Silky Oak (Located at the rear) - The Silky Oak is located along the fence line adjacent to 6 Bonnefin Rd. There is evidence of structural damage to the driveway and claims of drain interference. Silky Oak is regarded as an environmental weed species in the Sydney region and an undesirable species.

The tree has a major inclusion at a secondary branch attachment. Application for removal is approved. Consent for removal is conditional to a replacement species being planted. The replacement species should be a Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) or a Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood) and installed as minimum container size 200L.

14A Woolwich Road Hunters Hill (1760-14A)

6 June 2008 Evergreen Alder “Alnus acuminatai ” (located in the rear of the yard close to the boundary fence) - The species is considered inappropriate for the location and contributes little to the amenity of the surrounding area. Application for removal is approved. There is adequate existing canopy cover within the property boundary.

Note: Trees 1 – 4 are located within the neighbouring property at 16 Woolwich Rd. A written letter from the owners of trees 1-4 providing consent for the recommended pruning works should be provided to Council.






14A Woolwich Road Hunters Hill (1760-14A) (Continued)

The abovementioned pruning recommendations are conditional to the letter of consent being provided to Council. No pruning works on trees 1-4 should be undertaken without the letter of consent being provided.

15 Mary Street Hunters Hill (1480/15)

12 Jun 08 Camphor laurel (located rear garden) – The tree is dead. Application for removal is approved. There is adequate existing canopy cover and insufficient space for a replacement planting.

16A Woolwich Road WOOLWICH 2110 (1760-16A)

24 Jun 08 One camphor laurel (located at the front of your property) - The tree has been reassessed and consent is granted for removal.

Pittosporum Undulatum (located in the front garden) with a large basal cavity may be removed.

18 Augustine Street Hunters Hill (1055/18)

26 June 08 Rough barked apple Angophora floribunda (located in the backyard) – The tree is considered a significant species that contributes substantial amenity value to the locality. Consent is given for the removal of deadwood only to a minimum of 30mm diameter.

2 Bayview Crescent Hunters Hill (1075/2)

30 Jun 08 Livistona australis “Cabbage Palm” (located in rear garden) - The palm is located within close proximity to an entertainment and utility area, and is reportedly dropping large fronds. This palm provides a moderate contribution to the amenity and canopy cover in the immediate area. Application for removal is approved. Consent for approval is conditional to a replacement species being planted. The replacement species should be a tree capable of reaching a minimum mature height of 8 metres and be supplied as a mature specimen 100L.

10 Martin Street Hunters Hill (1475/10)

1 Jul 08 Backhousia spp . (located in n/east corner of property) – The tree has had significant and major pruning works undertaken in the past. One co-dominant branch has been lopped and substantial epicormic growth has resulted. Lopping is the cutting of branches or stems in between a junction or internode with the resultant re-growth being weakly attached and prone to failure. The tree also has an inclusion in the co-dominant branch joint.

Application for removal is approved. Consent for removal is conditional to a replacement smaller species being planted. The replacement species should be appropriate for the location.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 E10




10 Martin Street Hunters Hill (1475/10) (Continued)

A deciduous species with a mature height of 6 metres is viewed as appropriate. A deciduous tree would allow winter light into the garden whilst still contributing to the amenity of the locality.

19 Windeyer Avenue Gladesville (1750/19)

1 Jul 08 Liquidambar (located front garden) – The tree has broken the water service and damaged the concrete driveway. Structural fault in the main trunk at the 5 metre mark. The tree is well hidden behind a street tree. Application for removal is approved on condition a suitable replacement tree with a minimum mature height of at least 8 metres is planted.

18 Woolwich Road Hunters Hill (1760/18)

1 Jul 08 Callistemon salignus “Bottlebrush” – (Located adjacent to pool) - The tree is damaging the pool coping. Application for removal is approved. Note: Site has excellent tree cover.

3 Wybalena Road Hunters Hill (1765/3)

1 Jul 08 Salix spp. “Willow” (located rear garden) – The tree has extensive decay in trunk and in the branches. Application for removal is approved.

3-7 Luke Street Hunters Hill (1425/3-7)

1 Jul 08 Cypress x 2 (located adjacent to Unit 5) – The tree roots have damaged the pavement. Trees are located approximately ½ metre from wall of unit. Application for removal is approved on condition a suitable

St Joseph’s College Mark Street Hunters Hill (1480/7)

7 Jul 08 Coral trees x 3 “Erythrina” (located along Mary Street frontage) – Trees are damaging heritage stone wall and large capacity water service. Application for removal is approved on condition a minimum three replacement trees, with a minimum mature height of at least 8 metres are planted.

10A Margaret Street Woolwich (1455/10-10A)

7 Jul 08 Liquidambar (located rear garden on side boundary) – Tree has a history of dropping branches. Some decay evident in trunk. Tree has poor form. Application for removal is approved o condition a suitable replacement tree with a minimum mature height of at least 8 metres is planted.

76 Barons Crescent Hunters Hill (1065/76)

7 Jul 08 Umbrella tree (located rear garden) – Small specimen in a crowded garden. Application for removal is approved. Norfolk Island Pine (located rear garden) – Smaller specimen in a crowded garden. Application for removal is approved. Pittosporum (located rear garden) – Very poor condition. Application for removal is approved.

18 Earl Street Hunters Hill (1175/18)

14 Jul 08 Ficus hillii (located rear garden, closest to neighbour’s garage) – Tree has caused substantial structural damage to neighbours brick garage. The site has two other Figs plus other large established trees. Application for removal is approved.


Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 E11


FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.



Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 E12


ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : IMPORTATION OF SAVANNAH CATS INTO AUSTRALIA

BUSINESS PROGRAM : ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT


FILE : 030/04

BACKGROUND Council has received a request for support from the Sydney North Urban Feral Animal Action Group (UFAAG), of which Hunter’s Hill Council is a member, for the banning of the importation of Savannah Cats into Australia. The Savannah Cat is a new breed of cat (a hybrid of the domestic cat (Felis catus) and the African Serval (Felis serval)). The resulting animal is on average more than twice as large as a normal domestic cat, can leap up to 2m high and is reportedly intelligent, assertive and aggressive. While an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act live import permit is required to import a Serval to Australia, Savannah Cats that have been bred to the fifth generation removed from Servals are currently treated as Domestic Cats and can therefore be imported into Australia. There are several cats currently in quarantine in the USA waiting to be imported into Australia. Concern has been raised among the local community that should the Savannah Cat be permitted import to Australia, its inevitable escape and establishment in the wild will be extremely damaging to native species. These animals pose an extremely high risk to the sustainability and biodiversity of Australia’s native wildlife, given the characteristics listed above. Australia’s natural ecosystems are already severely affected by a range of previously introduced feral animals, many of which are in plague proportions (i.e. rabbits, deer, pigs, cats, foxes, wild dogs, cane toads and goats, etc.), and the introduction of another potential risk is both unwise and unacceptable. The Sydney North UFAAG is strongly opposed to the importation of the Savannah Cat. Council’s concurrence is sought for the submission of a letter in support of the ban to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION That Council concur with the submission of a letter of support to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts for the banning of the importation of Savannah Cats into Australia.

F

Finance & Administration

F – Finance & Administration

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Summary of Council’s Investments for June 2008 1 .........................................

Debra McFadyen MANAGER

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

REPORT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

Meeting 4252 – 28 JULY 2008 F1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENTS FOR JUNE 2008

BUSINESS PROGRAM : FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

REPORTING OFFICER : MARK SMITH

FILE : 330/06

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL'S INVESTMENTS AS AT 30 JUNE 2008 Institution Reference Principal Lodged Term Matures Rate CBA Bank Bill $ 1,254,033 16/06/2008 1 mth 16/07/2008 7.66% CBA Term Deposit $ 1,800,125 2/06/2008 1 mth 3/07/2008 7.43% CBA Bank Bill $ 352,215 25/06/2008 1 mth 25/07/2008 7.57% LGFS Term Deposit $ 1,668,367 25/06/2008 1 week 2/06/2008 8.45% LGFS Term Deposit $ 2,539,055 30/06/2008 1 mth 30/07/2008 7.71% IMB Term Deposit $ 1,906,787 7/05/2008 2 mth 7/07/2008 7.88% CBA 24 HR Call $ 100,000 24 HR Call 7.00% $ 9,620,580 CBA General $ 269,091 30/06/2008 Bank Account Balance $ 9,889,671 The above Investments include the following Restrictions Town Hall $ 104,100 Office Equipment $ 59,100 Plant $ 294,330 ELE $ 419,819 S94 $ 1,000,438 Trust Deposits $ 2,025,938 Trust Community Services $ 20,000 Capital Works $ 716,995 $ 4,640,720 Certification – Responsible Accounting Officer The investments listed above have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993, the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and Council’s policy on investments.

REPORT OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION

Meeting 4252 – 28 JULY 2008 F2


Portfolio 90 Day BB $ % Rate % Rate Total Investment as at: 31.7.07 8302276 6.40 6.47 31.8.07 8433166 6.61 6.76 30.9.07 9393445 6.86 6.95 31.10.07 9330374 6.86 6.90 30.11.07 9608643 7.01 7.14 31.12.07 9358682 7.20 7.22 31.1.08 9223832 7.22 7.18 29.2.08 9474433 7.37 7.67 31.3.08 10117647 7.83 7.91 30.4.08 9757289 7.86 7.83 31.5.08 9671142 7.77 7.75 30.6.08 9620580 7.80 7.81 Average Rate 7.25 7.30

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.005.506.006.507.007.508.00

31.7.07 31.8.07 30.9.07 31.10.07 30.11.07 31.12.07 31.1.08 29.2.08 31.3.08 30.4.08 31.5.08 30.6.08 AverageRate

Portfolio % Rate

90 Day BB % Rate



G

Customer & Community Services

G – Customer & Community Services

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. The Priory Conservation Management Plan 1 ..................................................................

Margaret Kelly COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

REPORT OF CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 G1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : THE PRIORY CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

BUSINESS PROGRAM : CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : ANNIE GOODMAN

FILE : 1642/LOT 1

In 2003 the Department of Health engaged Stedinger and Associates in association with Wayne McPhee and Associates to complete a Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for The Priory. The 2003 CMP outlined: � Conservation of significant built fabric. � Upgrade and repair of original and modern fabric. � Reinstatement and reconstruction of missing original components. � Conservation of external works, terraces, soft works and archaeological items. The 2003 CMP was undertaken specifically to determine the level of upgrade/conservation that would need to take place to refurbish the offices for the Department of Health. It should be noted that the Department of Health did not initiate any of the recommendations as outlined in the CMP and vacated the site shortly after its completion. In May 2008 Hunter’s Hill Council approached three companies who specialise in heritage conservation and architecture; Wayne McPhee and Associates, Graham Brookes and Associates and Godden Mackay Logan to quote for an upgrade the to 2003 CMP. The following fee proposals have been forwarded to Council: 1. Godden Mackay Logan (GML) Fee: $30,800 2. Wayne McPhee & Associates (WMA) Fee: $22,000 ($8,800 to update CMP and $13,200 for measured drawings) 3. Graham Brookes & Associates (GBA) Fee: $15,840 Council’s Heritage Adviser, Greg Patch has reviewed each quote and found that the quote of Wayne McPhee and Associates is of better value as it includes measured drawings and the quotes of GML and GBA do not. Both GML and GBA would charge additional costs on top of their quote to undertake measured drawings. It should also be noted that WMA require Council to undertake a complete survey of the site before they commence the CMP, which would cost Council an additional $10,000 (approximately).

REPORT OF CUSTOMER & COMMUNITY SERVICES

Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 G2


Both GML and GBA do not require Council to undertake a survey of the site or to have measured drawings included in the CMP to commence work. The importance of a survey and measured drawings will be determined by the findings of the CMP in regards to use. For example, if it were found that a new toilet block or kitchen needed to be built on the site, then at this stage it would be necessary to have both the survey and measured drawings. In terms of the company who has given a strong indication of their eagerness to undertake the CMP, GBA have certainly been the forerunner in terms of researching community expectations and clarifying what Council’s strategy should be to move the project forward. GBA have also been particularly mindful of the costs associated with restoring a building of the magnitude of The Priory and assisting Council, where possible, to meet Council’s limited budget. FINANCIAL IMPACT Payment for the CMP will be made via a separate Priory account that has been established with the proceeds from the Cockatoo Island Event and the Food and Wine Festival.

RECOMMENDATION That Graham Brookes and Associates be engaged to undertake an updated Conservation Management Plan for The Priory.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Godden Mackay Logan Fee Proposal 2. Wayne McPhee & Associates Fee Proposal 3. Graham Brookes & Associates Fee Proposal

H

General Manager

H – General Manager

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Henley Club 1 2. Councillor Fees 2008/09 3 3. Constitutional Recognition for Local Government 7 4. Revised Model Code of Conduct 10 5. Monthly Report on Outstanding Matters 14 .........................................

Barry Smith GENERAL MANAGER

REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER Meeting 4252 –28 July 2008 H1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : HENLEY CLUB

BUSINESS PROGRAM : ASSET MANAGEMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : BARRY SMITH

FILE : 1945 PART 4 : 1952 PART 1

On 1 July 2008, Council received advice from the NSW Office of Fair Trading that a certificate to wind-up the Henley Bowling and Recreation Club Co-operative Ltd had been issued under Sections 324 and 343(2)(G) of the Co-operatives Act 1992. The certificate was signed on 16 June 2008. The Club was advised of this on 26 June 2008, together with a copy of the Registrar's Certificate. Mr. Graham Stephenson of PPB has been appointed as Liquidator, and has commenced the process of liquidation by taking control of the property and changing the locks. Council Rangers attended the site with a representative of PPB to observe this process. On Tuesday 19 July 2008 the Liquidators returned possession of the building to Council. In considering the future of this building Council must be mindful of its role as the Trustee of the Crown Reserve and its ability to manage, care and control the entire Gladesville Reserve, not just that section occupied by the Henley Club. As Council is aware, the Department of Lands has expressed concern at the current situation and indicated that it would like to review, assist and participate in a revised EOI process.

The inconclusiveness of the previous EOI process is a roadblock to future decisions. In suggesting recommended actions going forward, it should be noted that Council currently has consultants SGL Group undertaking a Community Facilities Study. They have consulted extensively with the community about community facilities which are available in the area and the gaps that exist. The study has identified there is a need for additional community meeting spaces, spaces for indoor recreational activities and it is also known that there is a shortage of facilities for water-based sports. Potential exists for the development of a multipurpose recreational facility within the Municipality that would offer a range of activities for the local community. Preliminary findings also indicate that the current Henley Club building has the potential for the development of a commercial coffee shop/restaurant which would ensure that Council receives a reasonable rental return. It is important that Council identify a proposal for the site that will be acceptable to local residents. To this end, a number of local sporting organisations including soccer, basketball and rowing have recently contacted Council regarding use of the site and this presents positive opportunities for consideration. During the EOI evaluation process some options were referred to the Strategic Planning and Finance Advisory Working Party for consideration and comment and the group provided constructive ideas and feedback. It may again be useful to involve the Working Party in charting a way forward.



The following recommendations are designed to conclude the current situation and establish a platform for future decisions. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report at this time. However, future budgets will be impacted if no revenue is derived from this facility.

RECOMMENDATION 1. Council formally rejects all Expression of Interest proposals and any further

submissions received arising from the process commenced in 2006. 2. All persons and companies who submitted Expressions of Interest be advised of this

decision and thanked for their time and interest. 3. The EOI documentation be revised, utilising findings of the Community Facilities Study

and in consultation with the Department of Lands and the Strategic Planning and Finance Advisory Working Party, including possible future uses and management structures for the reserve and its facilities.

4. Following completion of the above and consideration by Council, a call for new

Expressions of Interest be made. 5. The Gladesville Reserve Plan of Management be reviewed to a result of any outcomes

of 3 and 4 above. 6. The existing facility continues to be operated as a community centre under the

auspices of Council, with bookings made through the Customer Service Centre and day-to-to day operational responsibility resting with the Community Services Manager.

7. Under the above arrangements no long-term booking commitments be entered into.



ITEM NO : 2

SUBJECT : COUNCILLOR FEES 2008/09

BUSINESS PROGRAM : COUNCIL MANAGEMENT & SUPPORT


FILE : 200/04 VOL 2

Under the Act the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal’s role is limited to determining the categories of Councils (s.239) and determining the minimum and maximum fee range for Councillors and Mayors in each of those categories. Councillors vote annually on what fee within this range they will pay themselves. The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal - 2008 Annual Review, has recently been handed down and contains recommendations in respect of Councillor fees for the 2008/2009 financial year. The report includes the following conclusion: “Conclusion 48. In making its determination, the Tribunal is of the firm view that the vast majority of Councils and Councillors are performing properly and discharging their duties responsibly. The Tribunal considers that poor performance by a small number of Councils and/or Councillors is not representative of local government across the state. 49. The Tribunal also notes that Councils spend a large proportion of their time on planning matters and that these are currently the subject of reform by the State Government. The Tribunal will monitor the impact of these reforms on Councils’ workloads and responsibilities over the coming year. 50. As outlined in the 2007 report, the Tribunal will undertake a review of the categories of Councils as part of the 2009 annual review. The Tribunal will seek detailed information from Councils in regard to categorisation at that time. 51. Having regard to the factors discussed in the report, and after considering key economic indicators, and after taking the views of the Assessors into account, the Tribunal considers that an increase of 4 per cent (4.0%) in the fees for Councillors and Mayors, is appropriate for the current year and so determines”. The payment of Councillor and Mayoral Fees is to be made in accordance with the Local Government Act, as follows: “248 Fixing and payment of annual fees for councillors

(1) A council must pay each councillor an annual fee. (2) A council may fix the annual fee and, if it does so, it must fix the annual fee in

accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. (3) The annual fee so fixed must be the same for each councillor. (4) A council that does not fix the annual fee must pay the appropriate minimum fee

determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.



249 Fixing and payment of annual fees for the mayor (1) A council must pay the mayor an annual fee. (2) The annual fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the mayor as a councillor. (3) A council may fix the annual fee and, if it does so, it must fix the annual fee in

accordance with the appropriate determination of the Remuneration Tribunal. (4) A council that does not fix the annual fee must pay the appropriate minimum fee

determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (5) A council may pay the deputy mayor (if there is one) a fee determined by the council

for such time as the deputy mayor acts in the office of the mayor. The amount of the fee so paid must be deducted from the mayor’s annual fee.”

The tables below outline Council categories and fees applicable for 2008/2009 as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. Category 2. (21 Councils)

Ashfield Lane Cove

Auburn Leichhardt

Botany Manly

Burwood Marrickville

Camden Mosman

Canada Bay Pittwater

Canterbury Rockdale

Holroyd Strathfield

Hunters Hill Waverley

Kogarah Woollahra

Ku ring Gai Determination Pursuant To Section 241 of Fees For C ouncillors and Mayors Pursuant to s.241 of the Local Government Act 1993, the annual fees to be paid in each of the categories to Councillors, Mayors, members and chairpersons of County Councils effective on and from 1 July 2008 are determined as follows:



Councillor/Member Annual Fee

Mayor/Chairperson Additional Fee*

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Category 4 6,870 9,060 7,300 19,790

Category 3 6,870 15,120 14,610 33,010

Category 2 6,870 15,120 14,610 33,010

2007/08 6,610 14,540 14,050 31,740

Category 1 10,300 19,250 21,910 51,130

Category 1A 13,740 22,680 29,210 66,100

S4 1,370 7,560 2,930 12,420

S3 1,370 4,530 2,930 8,250

S2 13,740 22,680 29,210 66,100

S1 20,620 30,240 126,160 166,000 *This fee must be paid in addition to the fee paid to the Mayor/Chairperson as a Councillor/Member (s.249 (2)). Proposed Councillor and Mayoral Fees for 2008/09 2007/08 2008/09 Increase Councillor Fee 14,540.00 (Max Fee) 15,120.00 580.00

1. Mayoral Fee 18,684.00 (58.86%) 19,429.69 (58.86%) 745.69

2. Mayoral Fee 19,431.36(07/08 + 4% 747.36

3. Mayoral Fee 24,757.50 (75.00%) 6,073.50

4. Mayoral Fee 33,010.00 (Max) 14,326.00 Council has resolved previously to set Councillor fees to the maximum. However, Council may wish to review the methodology for determining the Mayoral fee, which had for a number of years been set at the minimum fee plus the rate-pegging. Last year the payment was increased to the equivalent of 58.86% of the maximum fee but without determining a methodology for setting the fee. A survey of all other Category 2 councils shows that all Mayors are paid the maximum fee. The Mayoral Fee is paid in addition to the Councillors fee, as required by s249 (2). The above table indicates four options for Council consideration. 1. This option is not equitable in that using the same proportion is less than the 4.0%

awarded by the Remuneration Tribunal. 2. This option represents the current fee plus the 4.0% awarded by the Remuneration

Tribunal. 3. This option increases the fee to 75.0% of the maximum fee. As the current fee exceeds

the minimum fee and Hunter’s Hill is the smallest Council in the category, this may be a perceived as commensurate fee level.

4. This option increases the fee to the maximum fee, inline with all other Mayors of

Category 2 Councils.



FINANCIAL IMPACT Provisions for Councillors and Mayoral Fees have been made in the 2008/2009 Budget sufficient to meet the 4.0% increase. Should Council determine a change in the Mayoral fee then this would need to be a budget variation in the first budget review.

RECOMMENDATION That: 1. The Councillor fees for 2008/09 be set at $15,120.00. 2. The Mayoral fee for 2008/09 is set at $24,575.00, being 75.0% of the maximum fee

payable. 3. The 2008/09 budget is varied to accommodate fee increases.



ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT



FILE : 500/06

The absence of formal recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution is one of the most significant omissions in that document. The achievement of formal recognition remains one of the main objectives of the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and the various State Local Government Associations. Having local government recognised in the Constitution has also been at the forefront of debate in successive National General Assemblies of Local Government.

Advice form the ALGA and NSWLGA suggests that the push to achieve constitutional recognition of local government has been given new impetus with the election, last November, of a Labor Federal Government. The Australian Labor Party went into the Election with a commitment to consult, during its first term, with local government on the process for achieving constitutional recognition.

ALGA, in consultation with state and territory local government associations, is convening a Local Government Constitutional Summit – A Special National General Assembly in Melbourne from 8-11 December 2008, to bring together councils to discuss and, if possible, agree on a position to put to the Federal Government.

Prior to that Summit each State and Territory Association will consult with Councils on a position to be considered at the summit.

Recognition in the Australian Constitution is one of the most important challenges facing local government today. It is an issue that needs to be managed properly if Councils are to maximise the chances of success.

In this regard it is important that local government take the lead and be in a position to steer this issue forward.

To this end NSROC and SHOROC held a ‘Constitutional Recognition Workshop’ last Thursday 17 July 2008. The Mayor Clr Hoopmann, Deputy Mayor Clr Frame and myself attended the Workshop. The purpose of the Workshop was to discuss the merits of constitutional recognition and to feed the outcomes of the Workshop in to the Summit being held later in the year. Four keynote speakers addressed the Workshop:

1. NSW LGSA President Clr. Genia McCaffery (Mayor of North Sydney Council) 2. Professor Greg Craven (Vice Chancellor at the Australian Catholic University) 3. The Honourable Barry O’Keefe AM QC 4. Assoc. Professor Graham Sansom (Director of the Centre for Local Government UTS

Sydney)



Clr McCaffery opened the workshop and advised that the ALGA were considering three possible forms of constitutional recognition for discussion. These are: • Symbolic Recognition – which would see a reference to the existence of local

government in the preamble to the constitution. • Institutional Recognition – which would impose a duty on the States to retain a system

of local government and that a council aught not be amalgamated or dissolved without fair hearing.

• Financial Recognition – recognition that local government requires a more secure

revenue steam from the Commonwealth to provide the services and infrastructure expected by the community.

Clr McCaffery emphasised the need to be proactive and be in a position to express a preferred option to the Federal Government, should a referendum question be put to the 2010 election. It is reasonable to say that the three following speakers all agreed that it would be very difficult to gain support from the electorate for a change to the constitution as the record of success is abysmal. There was consensus from the speakers that any proposal must have bi-partisan political support, that any proposal must be simple and straightforward and that local government should hasten slowly and ensure that they have solid support. Referendum questions on the status of local government have previously been defeated (the last being in 1988) and another failure at this time would probably mean that it could be another forty or fifty years before something could be considered again. A lively discussion then took place among the delegates present and there was a reasonable agreement that a change would be difficult to achieve and that any proposal must be simple and straightforward. A modified version of part of the 1988 question was seen as a potentially good option for consideration at the Summit. The information from the workshop will be forwarded to the ALGA for inclusion in its preparation for the Summit. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.




ATTACHMENTS Background to Speakers The Honourable Barry O’Keefe AM QC Barry O’Keefe is a lawyer and former judge of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of NSW and a former Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Barry has a sound understanding of local government, having been a Councillor on Mosman Council from 1968- 1991, Mayor for ten of those years and President of the Local Government Association from 1986-1988. He has been President of the National Trust, a Trustee of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust and is currently a consultant with the law firm Clayton Utz and an adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. Associate Professor Graham Sansom Graham Sansom is Director of the Centre for Local Government and Associate Professor at the University of Technology, Sydney. He has over thirty years experience in State and Local Government, teaching and consultancy. Graham has held senior positions with local Councils and a regional organisation of Councils and from 1994-1998 was the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Local Government Association. He holds degrees in geography and urban and regional planning. His principle research interests include public policy particularly issues relating to the fundamental role and purpose of Local Government and intergovernmental relations. Professor Greg Craven Greg Craven is one of Australia’s best know constitutional law experts and has recently been appointed as Vice Chancellor at the Australian Catholic University. As an expert in public law, he has published numerous journal articles and books, including Conversations with the Constitution. Greg was previously Deputy Vice Chancellor (Strategy and Planning) At Curtin University where he also held the position of Professor of Government and Constitutional law having previously served as the Executive Director of the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy. Greg was Crown Counsel to the Victorian Government, 1992-1995. He was a leading republican advocate in the 1999 referendum and was a delegate to the Constitutional convention in 1998. Mayor Genia McCaffery Genia McCaffery was elected as full-time Mayor of North Sydney by popular vote in 1995 and was re-elected in 1999 and 2004. As Mayor, Ms McCaffery is committed to managing development within North Sydney, to responsible financial management of Council, to protecting the environment and to maintaining strong community involvement in local government. In October 2004, Ms McCaffery was elected President of the NSW Local Government Association and re-elected unopposed for a second term in October 2006.



ITEM NO : 4

SUBJECT : REVISED MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT



FILE : 200/18

Council has been advised via Circular 08/38, that the Department of Local Government has now completed a review of the Model Code that included the establishment of a reference group to assist with the review, a call for written submissions, a survey of councils for feedback on the implementation of the Model Code and consultation through focus groups and telephone interviews with local council representatives and specific industry groups. The outcome of the review is a revised Model Code that is effective from 20 June 2008. This is achieved by an amendment to the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 that prescribes the Model Code. The amendment to the Regulation appeared in the Government Gazette on 20 June 2008. The Code has been organised in three Parts: Context, Standards of Conduct and Procedures and additional sections have been added on complaint handling, complaint assessment criteria, and operational guidelines for conduct review committees/reviewers. These sections are contained in Part 3, Procedures. It is not proposed at this time to examine the changes in detail. The following report outlines and summarises the various changes. Part 1: Context • The introduction has been amended to include a reference to the relationship of the

Model Code to section 440 of the Act. • Additional definitions have been added for the conduct review committee, conduct

reviewer, conflict of interests, misbehaviour, person independent of council and personal information.

• The definition of delegates of council has been amended to clarify that it applies to

individual members of bodies that exercise a function delegated by council. • The key principle of ‘objectivity’ has been amended to ‘impartiality’. • Guide to ethical decision-making has been moved from the general conduct obligations

section into the context Part of the Model Code. • The guide to ethical decision-making now includes additional information to assist

council officials with political donations and conflict of interest situations.



Part 2: Standards of Conduct • Council officials are reminded of the sanctions for failure to comply with an applicable

provision of the standards of conduct.

General Conduct Obligations • Previous clause 5.1 (now clause 6.1) has been worded so that it applies to all council

officials and not just councillors. It is consistent with Schedule 6A of the Act.

• An additional clause has been added (6.4) that requires councillors to comply with council resolutions requiring them to take action as a result of a breach.

Conflict of Interests • This section of the Model Code has been substantially rewritten. The clauses have

been re-ordered and duplicate clauses removed.

• New provisions relating to non-pecuniary conflicts of interests include the addition of a clause (7.12) to provide that the political views of a councillor do not constitute a private interest and a clause (7.11) that provides that the matter of a conduct review committee/reviewer report to council is not a private interest.

The code provides a clearer definition of significant non-pecuniary conflicts of interests – clause 7.16. The code now clarifies the action that is required to be taken if a council official has a

non-pecuniary conflict of interest. This provides actions for significant and less than significant non-pecuniary conflict situations, clauses 7.17 and 7.18.

• (New) clause 7.19 provides that council staff should manage any non-pecuniary conflicts of interests in consultation with their managers.

• The political donations provisions now require councillors to treat a political donation in excess of $1000 in the same way as a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest. Councillors are required to determine whether or not contributions below $1000 create a significant conflict of interest.

Personal Benefit • This section of the Model Code has also been substantially rewritten. The clauses have

been re-ordered and duplicate clauses removed.

• Definitions of token gifts and benefits and gifts and benefits of value have been provided at the beginning of the section. These have been substantially rewritten to provide greater clarity around what is and what is not a gift/benefit of value or of token value.

• (Old) clauses 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.5 have been rewritten into (New) clause 8.3.

• (Old) clause 7.10 has been removed as the declaration of gifts totalling over $500 by councillors and designated persons is a requirement in the Act and does not need to be replicated in the Model Code.

Relationship Between Council Officials • The first four inappropriate interactions (clause 9.7) have been collapsed into two that

advise about approaches between councillors, administrators and staff in relation to individual staffing matters and allow for discussion on broad industrial policy issues.

• An additional interaction has been provided that advises that it is inappropriate for councillors and administrators to make personal attacks on council staff in a public forum.



• Language has been changed to make it clear that inappropriate interactions are a breach of the code – this was previously implicit only.

• The clause on the role of the Mayor has been removed as it is no longer seen as necessary.

Access to Information and Council Resources • (Old) clauses 9.1 to 9.13 have been tidied up to ensure they are clear.

• Reporting Breaches

• The content of this section has changed. This section only contains provisions that relate to the reporting of allegations of breaches of the code of conduct. The previous section included complaint handling and sanction information. That information is now contained in Part 3 of the Model Code.

• A provision has been added to make it clear than anyone can make a complaint alleging a breach of the code of conduct.

• The protected disclosures clauses have been modified to ensure that they are consistent with the Protected Disclosures Act.

Part 3: Procedures This is a new part of the Model Code. This Part contains the complaint handling procedures, complaint assessment criteria and the operating guidelines for the conduct review committee/reviewer. The complaint handling requirements and the complaint assessment criteria now provide for the use of a range of methods for the resolution of complaints, give clearer guidance about the referral of complaints to the conduct review committee/reviewer, clarify the role of the Mayor and the general manager in relation to complaint management and provide for annual reporting to council by the general manager on a summary of complaints under the code of conduct. Councils can now have conduct review committees or individual reviewers undertake enquiries into breach allegations. Members of these committees or the sole reviewers will now be independent of council and can act in the role for more than one council. Conduct review committees/reviewers are required to act in accordance with the operating guidelines that are provided in the Model Code. The general manager is now required to report annually to council on code of conduct complaints. Transitional arrangements Councils will now need to review their codes of conduct to ensure that they adopt the provisions of the Model Code that is effective from 20 June 2008. Councils are reminded that their codes may include provisions that supplement the Model Code and provisions more onerous than those contained in the Model Code. However, any supplementary or more onerous provisions will have no effect to the extent that they are inconsistent with the Model Code. Councils will need to deal with any complaints that are currently underway in accordance with the procedures established in their current code of conduct. Once councils have adopted the provisions of the revised Model Code, any complaints received about conduct that occurred under their previous code of conduct will need to be dealt with in accordance with the standards that applied in the code at that time. However, councils may choose to use the new procedural arrangements for managing the complaints that are contained in the revised Model Code for those complaints.



CONCLUSION It is proposed that the Code of Conduct be reviewed within the first three months following the September 2008 elections. This will then provide an opportunity for the review process to be incorporated into the Councillor induction program and also meet Councils statutory responsibility to review the Code of Conduct within twelve months of an election. In the interim period any complaints will be dealt with in accordance with the transitional provisions. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted and the Code of Conduct be reviewed within the first three months following the September 2008 Elections.

ATTACHMENTS

New Model Code of Conduct



ITEM NO : 5

SUBJECT : MONTHLY REPORT ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS



FILE : 210/01

Attached is the updated Monthly Report on Outstanding Matters, which lists all items considered by Council to warrant provision of a further report or for which it is considered appropriate to provide further information to Council.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be received and noted.

REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 H15


MEET NO.

MEET DATE

ITEM AGREED ACTION RESPONSIBLE

OFFICER

TARGET DATE

CURRENT STATUS

4221 23.10.06 D2 – DA No. 03/1049(B) – Valentia Street Toilet Block,

459/06 - RESOLVED that this matter be deferred and referred back to the Hunter’s Hill Council Access Advisory Committee to consider:

1. An alternative design for the facility as proposed by the Hon. Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans.

2. An alternative design that provides for entry and exit to the facilities from external points.

3. Additional information provided by the Physical Disability Council of NSW.

David Innes

August 2008 Amended plans are being finalised.

4222 13.11.06 E1 – Amendments to DCP No.15 – Appropriate Plant Species for Landscaping in Hunters Hill

494/06 - RESOLVED that a further report be brought to Council at the close of the exhibition period.

David Innes

October 2008 Exhibition period to commence following investigation work on urban design. Work with Landscaping Committee proceeding and a draft document is currently being finalised.

4241 10.12.07 D6 – DA No. 07/1090 – 1 Mark Street, Hunters Hill

537/07 – RESOLVED that a report be brought forward to consider overall traffic implications and traffic management within this precinct.

David Innes

October 2008 Further investigation required in conjunction with the Hunters Hill Village Master Plan.

J

Committees

J – Committees

4252 – 18 July 2008

Index 1. Minutes of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held 17 June 2008 1 2. Minutes of the Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee Meeting held 18 June 2008 5 3. Minutes of the Joint Library Service Advisory Committee Meeting held 25 June 2008 9 4. Minutes of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting held 15 July 2008 12 5. Minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel Meeting held 18 June 2008 16 6. Minutes of the Hunter’s Hill Council Event Committee Meeting held 17 June 2008 22 .........................................


REPORT OF COMMITTEES Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 J1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 17 JUNE 2008

LOCATION : HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL CHAMBER

BUSINESS PROGRAM : TRAFFIC & PARKING – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT – URBAN AMENITY


FILE : 205/12

The meeting commenced at 6.15pm. PRESENT

Clr P Astridge – Chair Hunter's Hill Council Clr R Sheerin Hunter's Hill Council B Love A Sharp J Rogers B Ho D Innes Manager, Public Works & Infrastructure, Hunter's Hill Council APOLOGIES No apologies were received. 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved J Rogers, seconded D Innes that the Minutes of the previous meeting held 20 May 2008 be accepted subject to a correction to Minutes: Clr Sheerin’s apology for the meeting held 20 May 2008 to be included in the Minutes.

2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

1. Tarban Creek Bridge – Rubber matting

MPW&I advised that it would be installed by 20 June 2008.

2. Madeline Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I advised that consultation is underway and a report will be submitted at the next meeting.



3. Luke Street, Hunters Hill

Following site visit by Council, the recommendation is to install “No Stopping” signs 1 metre each side of the subject driveway.

4. Ryde Road, Gladesville

Check status of Olympic route bus stop.

5. Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I advised that an initial meeting with a representative group of residents is to be held on 18 June 2008.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were no declarations of interest.

4. MARK STREET – TRAFFIC AND SIGNAGE

The Villa Maria request regarding traffic management during the school extension works was discussed. MPW&I to meet with the School to discuss details. Issues to be raised include:

• Parking for staff

• Management of pedestrians

• Preventing conflict between construction vehicles and pedestrians

• Maintaining access to the traffic signals at Ryde Road

Recommendation

Moved Clr Ross Sheerin, seconded John Rogers that MPW&I progress the traffic management with the School.

5. MARK STREET – WORLD YOUTH DAY

Recommendation

Moved B Ho, seconded Clr Ross Sheerin to provide temporary “bus zones” on the southern side of Mark Street for the week of 9–13 July 2008.

6. GARBAGE COLLECTION

Recommendation Moved J Rogers, seconded B Love that MPW&I meet with URM on site in Ferdinand

Street/Cullens Lane to resolve access problems.

7. BIKE PLAN – GRANT

Received and noted.



Moved A Sharp, Seconded Clr R Sheerin 8. WORKS LIST

MPW&I to forward updated list.

9. BARONS CRESCENT, HUNTERS HILL

MPW&I advised of availability of RTA accident data. No recorded accidents at intersection of Barons Crescent and Park Road. However, it is considered reasonable to install painted islands on the road to improve safety at the intersection.

Moved B Love, Seconded Clr Ross Sheerin

10. GLADESVILLE ROAD, HUNTERS HILL

Mr Max Rawnsley, Business Manager of St. Joseph’s College addressed the Committee regarding the proposal for a pedestrian facility in Gladesville Road at the entrance to the College.

The merits of various possible treatments were discussed.

Recommendation

That the MPW&I prepare a plan of a raised platform style of facility for submission to next meeting of the PT&TA Committee.

Moved A Sharp, Seconded B Ho.

11. GENERAL BUSINESS

11.1 Batemans Road, Gladesville

The Committee considered a request from Mrs Clara Raffaele regarding parking in Batemans Road, Gladesville.

Recommendation

That the MPW&I prepare a draft plan of possible parking controls, similar to Junction Road, for consideration at the next PT&TA Committee meeting.

11.2 Church Street, Hunters Hill

General discussion on the DA for a childcare facility and the possible issues regarding traffic. MPW&I advised that appropriate comments will be made during the assessment process.

11.3 Pittwater Road/Ryde Road, Gladesville traffic signals

MPW&I advised that the RTA have not yet replied to letter.

11.4 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I advised that the rangers are now routinely patrolling school zones.



11.5 Alexandra Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I to check the height of the school crossing flag to improve sight distance.

11.6 Church Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I advised that the RTA has not yet replied to the letter regarding phasing of the pedestrian lights at the overpass.

11.7 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill

MPW&I advised that the requested signage improvements at Burns Bay Road will be finalised.

12. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee will be held on 15 July 2008 at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber.

The meeting closed at 8.05 pm. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Minutes be received and noted.

2. That the Manager of PW&I progress the traffic management with Villa Maria School.

3. To provide temporary “bus zones” on the southern side of Mark Street for the week of 9-13 July 2008 (World Youth Day).

4. That the Manager of PW&I meet with URM on site in Ferdinand Street/Cullens Lane to resolve access problems concerning garbage collection.

5. That the Manager of PW&I prepare a plan of a raised platform style of pedestrian facility at the entrance to St. Joseph’s College for submission to next meeting of the PT&TA Committee.

6. That the Manager of PW&I prepare a draft plan of possible parking controls for Batemans Road, similar to Junction Road, for consideration at the next PT&TA Committee Meeting.



ITEM NO : 2

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE HUNTERS HILL – LE VESINET FRIENDSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 18 JUNE 2008


BUSINESS PROGRAM : INFORMATION OF COUNCIL

REPORTING OFFICER : COUNCILLOR SUSAN HOOPMANN

FILE : 590/01

The meeting opened at 7.30pm.

PRESENT

Janet Williams Namrita Sandhu Judy Uther Sara Vickers Francoise Alexander Clr Susan Hoopmann Mayor, Hunter's Hill Council APOLOGIES Pat Grace Robyn Carr Danielle Waples 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Judy Uther, seconded Francoise Alexander that the Minutes of the previous meeting be confirmed subject to an amendment to 4.4 – Costing for the bench, as follows: 4.4 Costing for the bench Noted that the quote of around $2,000 had been received and approved in principle, subject to further research and additional quotes. Also noted that the figures in the quote provided were incorrect.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest.




3.1 Cocktail party to be held 14 July 2008

Menu Namrita Sandhu will confirm the menu and quote with Jacki, with the following amendments: - Cut the French Onion Soup from the menu. - Thank Jacki for her offer to donate her time to the event – we agreed that

we would prefer to pay Jacki for her time. Drinks Drinks at the event will be: - Champagne - White wine - Red wine - Sparkling mineral water - Beer - Cocktails to be provided on arrival – champagne with 1) Curacao, 2) on its

own, 3) with Cassis (bleu, blanc, rouge).

Namrita Sandhu will get quotes for drinks to include glasses from Vintage Cellars, Figtree Cellars + 1 other. Decorations Ida Ozoux’s friend will lend us a 10 foot tall Moulin Rouge plus cancan dancers (not real ones!) – these will be delivered on the Monday morning. Judy Uther to get decorations: - Get Charles Clarkson brochure and price balloons, streamers, ribbons, etc. - Investigate getting additional balloon sticks - Provide decorations from Moocooboola - Look into shield with flags Francoise Alexander to bring tablecloth for the front table. Sara Vickers to provide name labels for those who have RSVP’d. Danielle Waples to send list of confirmed attendees to Sara Vickers by 10 July 2008. All please to bring photos from previous years’ exchanges to decorate foyer. Volunteers please to decorate in the morning. Judy Uther, Janet Williams, Pat Grace and Robyn Carr hopefully available. Music Janet Williams will bring CD player with speakers to set up in foyer. Note : this is only a small CD player – if anyone else has a suitable CD player, please bring it along so we can use the one that sounds best in the space. All please to bring appropriate CDs.



3.2 Bench update A bench has been chosen for Le Vesinet. In Hunters Hill, we have made a request that the bike rack be removed from the area where our bench will be. This has been informally agreed to, but we require formal agreement that this will happen. 3.3 Clothing Both shirts and caps should be here in time to hand out at the leaving dinner and to sell at Moocooboola. 3.4 Hunters Hill Brochure No updates.

4. GENERAL BUSINESS

4.1 Welcome ceremony Welcome ceremony will be 4-6pm on 27 June 2008 in the Council Chamber. All are invited – please bring a plate. Families and exchange students will be there. Janet Williams and Francoise Alexander to bring champagne and glasses. Sue Hoopmann to give a welcoming speech and explain about the programme. Judy Uther to ask Ida Ozoux about preparing welcome pack for the students. 4.2 Lunch at farm Saturday 26 July 2008, lunch will be at 12 noon – Committee and partners invited. Janet Williams will hand out maps at welcoming ceremony – please note: it takes around 2.5 hours to get there. Janet Williams will provide barbecue and meat. Other responsibilities: - Committee to bring salads and desserts - Francoise Alexander – dessert - Namrita Sandhu – green salad - Sara Vickers – vegetarian food + salad - Judy Uther – salad Please confirm numbers at welcome ceremony. 4.3 Dinner at Pat Grace’s 30 July 2008 at 7pm Responsibilities: - Judy Uther – 1 meat lasagne, 1 veggie lasagne - Francoise Alexander – tarts - Robyn Carr – 2 pavlovas - Namrita Sandhu – samosas - Pat Grace – pâté - Sara Vickers – green salad - Sue Hoopmann – bread - All to help with setting up bar. - Judy Uther and Pat Grace to discuss and agree on plates and cutlery. - Sue Hoopmann/Janet Williams to find out about dishwashers.



4.4 Moocooboola At Boronia Park, Sunday 3 August 2008. Judy Uther to review prices and arrangements with organisers. We decided that we want the coffee cart again, and will ideally keep a corner spot, as last year. Judy Uther will speak to Louise to see whether she will run the coffee cart again – if not, Judy Uther to arrange another coffee cart option. Keep same format, including raffle.

5. CORRESPONDENCE Email from: 23.04 Tom Lyons: photos 29.04 Claire: re polo shirts 12.05 Danielle: re next meeting 15.05 Sara: minutes 16.05 Claire: re caps 17.05 Anne Francoise: invitation to Fete de la Marguerite 21.05 Claire: re caps 27.05 Jocelyne: re programmes 28.05 Martine: re label for bench 1.06 Jocelyne: re visit 4.06 Namrita: re catering 5.06 Sara: offer to help 5.06 Danielle: re invites 5.06 Anne Francoise: thanks for the bench 5.06 Martine: re label 6.06 Anne Francoise: re position of the bench 6.06 Anne Francoise: re programme 7.06 Anne Francoise: re Fete 7.06 Anne Francoise: re invite sent to Katie 8.06 Martine: re label 15.06 Rysia Pazderski: re no to Cocktail Party 16.06 Danielle: re apologies Replies to all the above.

6. TREASURER’S REPORT

Report was circulated. 7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee will be the student Welcome Ceremony to be held on Friday 27 June 2008 at 4.00pm in the Council Chamber.


RECOMMENDATION That the minutes be received and noted.



ITEM NO : 3

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE JOINT LIBRARY SERVICE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 25 JUNE 2008

LOCATION : GLADESVILLE LIBRARY MEETING ROOM

BUSINESS PROGRAM : LIBRARY SERVICES

REPORTING OFFICER : MARGARET KELLY

FILE : 205/34 The meeting commenced at 5.30pm. PRESENT

Clr R. Quinn Hunter's Hill Council Clr G. O’Donnell Ryde City Council L. Gee M. Kelly Community Services Manager, Hunter's Hill Council D. Lisson Observers

E. Salter D Van Sommers APOLOGIES No apologies were received. 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Clr O’Donnell, seconded Clr R. Quinn that the minutes of the previous meeting be accepted.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest. 3. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

3.1 External signage L. Gee informed the Committee that the two General Managers had met and discussed the issues raised at the last meeting. The following action has been agreed and is underway: Side sign – Hunter’s Hill Council logo to be added. Front sign – To be removed by City of Ryde. Street sign – Hunter’s Hill Council logo to be added to the existing round sign.



L. Gee has organised a quote for a new totem pole for the front entrance to the library. The cost of this would need to be shared. 3.2 Library website L. Gee reported that this matter was also discussed by the two General Managers. Hunter’s Hill Council’s General Manager will try to find a local solution for branding the library website with the Hunter’s Hill Council banner whilst it is displayed through the Hunter’s Hill Council website. L. Gee reported that it was the understanding of the City of Ryde that the joint library service was limited to the activities of Gladesville Library. The library membership cards will not be rebranded. Library publications produced by the library that are distributed through Gladesville Library will be branded with Ryde Hunters Hill Library Service. D. Van Sommers commented that this was not her understanding of the original agreement. Clr R. Quinn and M. Kelly agreed. 3.3 Gladesville Library opening hours M. Kelly reported that the staff from both Councils had agreed on the wording of a survey question. The question asked if there was support for the proposal to close the Gladesville Library earlier on Mondays and Fridays (5pm rather than 8pm) to allow an extension of the Saturday opening hours until 3pm. Hunter’s Hill Council included the question in its annual residents survey. 280 replies were received from residents with 65% supporting the proposal. Gladesville Library is currently surveying library users and the survey will close at end of June 2008. It was agreed to carry forward this matter until the next meeting when results of both surveys will be available. 3.4 Promotional activities M. Kelly reported on promotional activities to try and increase usage and membership of the library by residents of Hunters Hill Municipality. Hunters Hill Council, Friends of Gladesville Library and library staff held a range of activities during Seniors Week. Activities are also planned for the Gladesville Library Festival in the July school holidays. She thanked everyone for their efforts, especially the Friends of Gladesville Library for the funds raised by the book sale.

4. GENERAL BUSINESS 4.1 Statistical reports D. Lisson distributed the standard reports on issues, visitors and members for the recent quarter. Surprise was expressed at the drop from the unusual high level of activity at the end of 2006. It was noted that users of Gladesville Library are higher users of online resources and many use the library remotely and would not be captured in the statistics.



4.2 R.F.I.D. L. Gee reported that the library service would like to see the R.F.I.D. system implemented at the Gladesville Branch. It has been implemented at all other branches. The cost for incorporating Gladesville into the system is $70,000, which is the hardware required to scan the books. L. Gee reported that this would be an enhancement of the existing service, and as such Hunter’s Hill Council would be requested to contribute half the cost. Clr R. Quinn noted that Hunter’s Hill Council would need to reflect on the agreement and discuss the way forward. 4.3 Friends of Gladesville Library E. Salter did not have more to add to the above activity report.

5. OTHER BUSINESS

Clr Quinn noted that this was the last meeting of the current Committee, as Council elections will be held in September. Following the elections each Council will appoint new delegates to the Committee. He thanked everyone for their contributions to the Committee.

6. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Joint Library Service Advisory Committee will be held on Wednesday 29 October 2008 at 5.30pm at Gladesville Library.

The meeting closed at 6.50 pm.





ITEM NO : 4

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 15 JULY 2008


BUSINESS PROGRAM : TRAFFIC & PARKING – TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT – URBAN AMENITY


FILE : 205/12

The meeting commenced at 6.10pm. PRESENT

Clr P Astridge – Chair Hunter's Hill Council A sharp B Ho J Rogers D Innes Manager PW&I, Hunter's Hill Council APOLOGIES Clr S Hoopmann Mayor, Hunter's Hill Council Clr R Sheerin Hunter's Hill Council 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved J Rogers, seconded B Ho that the Minutes of the previous meeting held 17 June 2008 be accepted.


1. Tarban Creek Bridge – Rubber matting has been installed.

2. Luke Street – To be submitted to Council August 2008.

3. Alexandra Street – Initial meeting was held with residents on 18 June 2008. 4. Mark Street – Traffic management with Villa Maria construction work.

MPW&I met with school principal and school is to submit draft traffic management plan.

5. Mark Street – Temporary “bus zone” signs have been installed for World

Youth Day. 6. Garbage collection – MPW&I met with URM to discuss options. 7. Bike Plan/Grant – Awaiting result of grant application.



8. Traffic works list – Attached to PT&TA Committee Agenda.

9. Barons Crescent – To be submitted to Council August 2008.

10. Gladesville Road – Plan to be submitted to August meeting of PT&TA Committee.


There were no declarations of interest. 4. Stanley Road, Hunters Hill – Parking

A letter was received regarding the increasing number of vehicles parking on the footpath of Stanley Road, corner of Mount Street and in ”no stopping” zones, outside Hunters Hill Private Hospital, and outside No.7 Mount Street. Recommendation of Committee: That “no stopping” signs adjacent to No.7 Mount Street in Stanley Road be installed. Moved B Ho, seconded A Sharp.

5. Madeline Street, Hunters Hill – Consultation

MPW&I presented the results of the consultation with residents of Madeline Street regarding access issues in the street.

Recommendation of Committee: a) That the PT&TA Committee recommend the extensions of the “no stopping”

zone on the southern side of Madeline Street, adjacent to No 7. b) That the residents in Madeline Street, between Ernest and Ady Streets, be

further consulted to gauge support for the introduction of a “no stopping” zone on the northern side of Madeline Street.

Moved J Rogers, seconded A Sharp. 6. Accident Statistics MPW&I presented a summary of accident statistics for Hunter’s Hill Council for the

period 1996-2006. The Committee will discuss various aspects of the statistics, including more detailed information, over future meetings.

Recommendation of Committee:

That the information be received and noted. Moved B Ho, seconded A Sharp.



7. Traffic Works Program MPW&I presented a listing of traffic issues/works being addressed.

Recommendation of Committee: That the information be received and noted. Moved J Rogers, seconded A Sharp. 8. GENERAL BUSINESS

8.1 Batemans Road, Gladesville

MPW&I presented a report on past considerations addressing the parking/access issues in Batemans Road. The results indicated that the problems are at the Victoria Road end of the street. Residents at the northern end of the street did not see the need for any controls. Any controls at the Victoria Road end will need to take into account the need to not impede weekend visitor parking use of the street.

Recommendation of Committee:

That the residents in Batemans Road, south of Batemans Village, be consulted regarding a suitable parking restriction regime. Moved A Sharp, seconded J Rogers

8.2 Council footpaths – use by non-pedestrians

A letter has been received from Mr Anthony Roberts MP, on behalf of Mr Michael Santry requesting that action be taken to prevent cyclists and other non-pedestrians be prevented from using Council footpaths. The Committee concluded, after due consideration, that it would be impractical to implement such a suggestion.

Recommendation of committee:

That no action be taken and Mr Roberts MP be advised of Council’s decision.

8.3 Victoria Road opposite Morrison Road

MPW&I to investigate possible pedestrian hazard at traffic signals.

8.4 Figtree Road/Ryde Road, Hunters Hill

MPW&I to organise painting of traffic island and install bollard to improve visibility of island.

8.5 Huntleys Point Road, Huntleys Point

MPW&I to report to next meeting regarding possible parking in Huntleys Point.



8.6 Reiby Road, Hunters Hill

MPW&I to investigate parking adjacent to newly remarked double centre lines.

8.7 Church Street overpass

MPW&I to write to the RTA regarding the recently installed mesh fencing.

8.8 Ryde Road/Martin Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I to write to the RTA regarding the phasing of time traffic signals at the intersection of Ryde Road and Martin Street.

8.9 Mary Street, Hunters Hill

MPW&I to investigate the skip bin that has been in Mary Street for some time.

9. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee will be held on 19 August 2008 at 6.00pm in the Council Chamber.

There being no further business the meeting concluded at 7.40pm. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact on Council’s adopted budget as a result of this report.

RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Minutes be received and noted. 2. That the installation of “no stopping” signs in Stanley Road, adjacent to No.7 Mount

Street, be referred to the Local Traffic Committee for concurrence. 3. That the residents in Madeline Street, between Ady Street and Ernest Street, be

consulted regarding the installation of “no stopping” signs. 4. That the residents in Batemans Road, south of Batemans Village, be consulted

regarding the installation of suitable parking restrictions.



ITEM NO : 5

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (CAP) MEETING HELD 18 JUNE 2008

LOCATION : COUNCIL CHAMBER


REPORTING OFFICER : GREG PATCH

FILE : 205/13

The meeting commenced at approximately 5.00pm at the Ryde Road inspection site (see Item 5 below).

PRESENT

Clr Sue Hoopmann Mayor, Hunter’s Hill Council Clr Annabel Croll Hunter’s Hill Council Brian McDonald RAIA Member Tony Coote Hunters Hill Trust Representative Robyn Christie National Trust Representative Beverley Garlick Architect - Community Representative (arrived at approx. 8.40pm) Steve Kourepis Manager, Development & Environment, Hunter’s Hill Council Greg Patch Heritage Adviser, Hunter's Hill Council APOLOGIES Paul Fletcher Architect - Community Representative 1. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved Beverley Garlick, seconded Brian McDonald that the Minutes of the previous meeting held 21 May 2008 be confirmed.


There were no declarations of interest. 3. INTERVIEWS WITH APPLICANTS

3.1 5-7 Church Street, Hunters Hill Members of the Panel (SH, BM, TC, SK, GP) attended the above site at 5.30pm. Contrary to the advice of the applicant, access to the properties was granted by the occupants. A meeting subsequent to the site inspection commenced at approximately 6.00pm. There was no representative of the applicant present, so the Panel considered the proposal in their absence.



There were two main issues discussed: 1. Demolition of the Existing Houses: the Panel members considered the

houses to be fine examples of Federation era houses, which while altered in some degree are still substantially intact. The nature and height of the fences along the Church and Durham Street frontages were seen to be a response to the traffic noise, and contained mature and well-maintained gardens (it was noted that the fence to No 7 Church Street appears to be failing structurally).

It was concluded that CAP would not support demolition of the buildings and considers them to be “on the cusp” of being of sufficient heritage value for individual listing under Schedule 6 of the Hunters Hill LEP.

2. Proposed development – it is considered that on the basis that the

demolition of the existing houses is not supportable, evaluation of the proposed replacement development is superfluous. It was noted, however, that the proposed building is excessively bulky, reduces the legibility of the Durham Estate subdivision, and would have adverse impacts on the character of the conservation area, particularly since the location is something of a “gateway” site in relation to the entry onto the Hunters Hill/ Woolwich peninsula. It was also observed that location does not appear appropriate for a Child Care Centre due to traffic and noise.

Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development & Environment, be advised that CAP does not support the demolition of the existing houses.

3.2 12 Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill

There was no representative of the applicant present, so the Panel considered the proposal in their absence. It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing house which while not listed individually as a heritage item is a relatively intact example of a Federation style house, and adjoins two Sch. 6 heritage items at 8 and 10 Pittwater Road. A substantial upper floor/roof addition is proposed, together with alterations and additions to the existing ground floor and a separate cabana building to the rear yard. In considering the proposal, the panel were of the view that the visibility of the house from the east while travelling west on Gladesville Road, and the relative elevation, is such that the proposed upper level/roof addition will be highly visible and will have detrimental effects on the form and presentation of the house. This in turn will give rise to adverse impacts on the streetscape, adjoining heritage items and the character of the conservation area. It was observed that the land on which the house is located is large, and that there is ample scope to achieve the accommodation sought as a single storey addition, or detached pavilion-type extension, possibly with “rooms in the roof”. Further design consideration is warranted, and CAP would be pleased to assist the applicant in this regard.



Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised that CAP considers that the proposal will have deleterious impacts on the house itself, on the streetscape, character of the conservation area and the setting of the adjoining heritage items.

3.3 6 Hillcrest Avenue, Gladesville

The meeting was addressed by Theo Saklas of Design Studio. It is proposed to make alterations and additions to the existing cottage, which is listed as a Sch. 7 “Contributory Building” item and is located adjacent a Sch. 7 Item, with a Sch. 6 Item (1 Batemans Road) adjoining to the rear. In considering the proposal, CAP were of the opinion that the connection of the proposed addition to the rear of the cottage roof is awkwardly resolved, too high in relation to the existing ridge and excessive in volume. The fenestration to the side and rear walls was also seen to be inappropriately proportioned and excessive in extent, respectively. It was advised that a more detached, atrium connected pavilion approach would be more appropriate, and that vernacular – based sun control elements should be employed to the north-east and south-west sides and rear glazing to respond to the orientation of the proposal. Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised that CAP considers that the proposal may be supportable, given the design changes and measures discussed above.

3.4 18-20 Ferry Street, Hunters Hill

The Panel was addressed by the owner, Mr Yoran Sablat, and architect, Mr Mark Armstrong. Mr Armstrong explained that it is proposed to retain the two existing structures on site - a transverse gabled cottage with rear skillion additions, and a longitudinally gabled former shop, again with rear skillion additions. It is proposed to remove portions of the rear skillions to the cottage, and the whole to rear of the former shop and effect connections to a new two-storey building that is arranged such that it presents paired gables to Ferry Street. A carport/storage structure is proposed off Toocooya Lane to the rear of the site, and it is proposed to retain the remnant chimneystack from the cottage that was burnt down in the recent past, subject to satisfactory resolution of its structural defects. The matter of how and if the chimney is to be retained is subject to further consideration - to be advised. There was discussion in relation to the resolution of the fenestration to the northern elevation of the Lounge/Bedroom 1 portion of the proposal. CAP recommended that high-level windows should be considered to this wall to allow sun and light penetration. The proposal also includes a lantern-like addition to the skillion roof of the cottage. This is proposed to allow greater volume and clerestory lighting to the proposed Kitchen/Play Area. CAP considered the approach to be appropriate subject to further detail resolution.



In general terms, CAP were of the view that the approach in terms of the disposition of built form on the site, the scale of the elements, and the detailing of the new and altered works is generally sympathetic and compatible with the existing heritage structures on the site, and looks forward to the fully-resolved proposal for further review and discussion.

Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised of the Panel’s general support for the approach thus far and that it looks forward to further review of the proposal.

3.5 1 Hunter Street, Woolwich

The Panel was addressed by the owner, Mr Phillip Guest, and architect, Karl Romandi, and Anthea Harris from the office of Karl Romandi & Helen De Luis Architects. The discussions were by way of preliminary consultation, seeking guidance from CAP as to its initial reaction to the proposed works. It is proposed to make alteration and additions to the existing house “Nalpa” which was apparently built circa 1888 in the “Marin Villa” mode. The facade of the house now addresses Mayfield Avenue, while its street address is 1 Hunters Street. Mr Romandi emphasised that members of the Panel should take particular note of the relative levels of the site in his explanation of the proposal, and advised that the house had been the subject of substantial and piecemeal internal alterations in the past- particularly in relation to the staircase and disposition of cooking and ablutions facilities. There are two main components of the proposal: a garage to be excavated into the site off Mayfield Avenue; and alterations and additions to the rear of the house, including some demolition and internal alteration. The Garage: In discussing the proposed garage, CAP were of the opinion that the

approach has potential to be successful, subject to the design resolution of the access and streetscape presentation of the entrance and door. The matter of excavation into the outcropping rock and the proposed relocation of the existing steps to the property were discussed in terms of the relatively informal nature of the street frontage/nature strip, and it was observed that the resolution of the design should take this character into account.

House Alterations and Additions:

Concern was expressed at the extent of proposed demolition - particularly in relation to the south-western corner of the building. It was considered that the extent of demolition to this portion of the house may be deleterious to an understanding of the original form of the house, and that further design consideration should be given in this connexion.

The proposed removal of the single storey north-western wing was not considered to be a similar level of concern, subject to adequate and acceptable fabric analysis and assessment to justify this aspect of the proposal.



The remainder of the nature of the proposed extensions - Family Room, Study, upper level bedrooms and associated bathrooms were seen to be in a relatively rudimentary stage of design, and the Panel looks forward to reviewing the proposal once further resolution of the design is undertaken.

Committee Resolution : That the Manager, Development and Environment be advised of the Panel’s desire to review the proposal once further design resolution has been undertaken and is available for consideration.

4. GENERAL BUSINESS 4.1 29 Augustine Street, Hunters Hill

CAP reviewed design amendments to the proposed new dwelling house to the above property, following its advice and comments on the preliminary proposal presented at its meeting of May 2008. In considering the amendments, the members were of the opinion that there had been something of an “overshoot” in the response to the simplification of the Augustine Street façade. It was observed that the composition of the street façade would benefit from an approach similar to that of the rear elevation where the use of balconies and greater articulation and relief has led to a successful composition. It was felt that if more of this character could be incorporated into the street façade, it would afford a more articulated expression. The proposed portico was also discussed, and it was concluded that this element could be retained in some form.

4.2 Ryde Road, Hunters Hill Village Draft LEP/DCP Following the site inspection prior to the May meeting, the subsequent discussion in the meeting and submissions from Panel members in the interim, it was concluded that CAP’s response to the proposed Draft Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan should be reviewed. There was discussion as to whether this section of Ryde Road should have been included in the area to which the Draft LEP and DCP applies in the first place. It was concluded that the reason for this contention is an underlying desire to essentially maintain the character of this portion of Ryde Road as it is of relatively consistent character and the “introduction” to the Hunters Hill Village centre. Further discussion revolved around the need to retain the scale and character of the existing cottages in any future development. The current subdivision pattern was noted as being a Sch. 6 listed Joubert estate subdivision of the latter half of the 19th century, and it was considered that the provisions of the LEP appeared aimed at distorting the subdivision pattern through encouraging existing lot amalgamations. It was also noted that there are a number of heritage items adjoining to the rear of the properties, and that adequate setbacks should be maintained to conserve their individual settings. The proposed overall height and envelope controls were also discussed and it was concluded that further consideration should be given to the potential practical outcomes of the controls in terms of the bulk and form of the resultant buildings.



There was a degree of divergence in opinion amongst CAP members with BG generally supportive of the Draft LEP approach, while AC, RC and TC were opposed, with B McD and SH of the view that further refinements are necessary.

5. SITE INSPECTIONS

5.1 Nos 5 & 7 Church Street, Hunters Hill

See Item 3.1

6. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Conservation Advisory Panel will be held on Wednesday 16 July 2008 at 5.00pm in the Council Chamber.





ITEM NO : 6

SUBJECT : MINUTES OF THE HUNTER’S HILL COUNCIL EVENT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD 17 JUNE 2008

LOCATION : COUNCIL CHAMBER

BUSINESS PROGRAM : COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

REPORTING OFFICER : ADRIAN BLACK

FILE : 205/35

The meeting opened at 6.10pm.

PRESENT

Jackie Wright Community Services Administrative Support, Hunter's Hill Council Adrian Black Community Events Coordinator, Hunter's Hill Council Tony Atkinson Clr. Sue Hoopmann Mayor, Hunter's Hill Council Rick Retas Ian Cox St. Joseph’s College

APOLOGIES Graham Mitchell Roger O’Dwyer Senior Constable Murray Wills 1. BUSINESS ARISING 1.1 Moocooboola Festival Parade

It was decided that the parade would be moved to later in the day, around lunch time. This would hopefully draw a crowd of people wanting to buy lunch and also give people who have attended church an opportunity to come and see the parade. Clr. Sue Hoopmann suggested that people that have been part of the parade in previous years be contacted to see if the new time is suitable for them. The parade will go down Park Road. Ideas of community groups that could be involved were the Scouts, Guides, the preschool, SES, dancing groups, a marching band, Rotary. Adrian Black to contact Geoffrey Chard from the Music Club. Adrian Black suggested the possibility of involving local businesses. The Committee was unsure about this as this may make the parade too commercial.



1.2 Moocooboola Festival Promotion Three new banners are being purchased. There are two older banners that will also be used. The banners will be placed on Victoria Road near Riverside Girls, on the overpass at Church Street, out the front of Hunters Hill Hotel, at Boronia Park and out the front of the Council. On the new banners Adrian Black would like to put a picture of the peninsular, with the two waters coming together, so that it can be a common theme for every year. There will be advertising in the Northern District Times, The North Shore Times and The Weekly Times. In the Northern District Times, there is going to be a wrap around the paper as well as additional advertising. Sponsorship has been obtained from the Hunters Hill Hotel and URM Waste to help pay for the additional advertising. There will be a post card size flyer (folded in half), which will be circulated to all the residents. These flyers will also be delivered to shops and posters will be put up. 2RRR will also be involved with advertising the event and will work closely with Council on the day.

1.3 Moocooboola Festival Entertainment

The morning time slot will be left for community displays, dance groups and schools to perform. From 1-4pm there will be jazz bands playing. Ian Cox suggested that St. Joseph’s might do a ½ hour spot. Adrian Black will contact the schools again to see if they are interested in performing. The idea of an opportunity for local groups to get up and talk about themselves was also suggested. The MC or a presenter could interview them. The scouts will also have a flying fox set up on the day.

1.4 Art Tent

A new concept this year will be the Art Tent. This gives artists an opportunity to sell their work on the day. The maximum allowed will be 40, but it can be any amount less than that. Clr. Sue Hoopmann suggested contacting the local art group, the “Whirley Birds”. Ulf Kaiser will be doing a Moocooboola themed artwork, which will be auctioned on the day.

2. GENERAL BUSINESS

There was no General Business. 3. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting of the Hunter’s Hill Council Event Committee meeting will be held on Tuesday 22 July 2008 at 6pm in the Council Chamber.

The meeting closed 7.02pm.

K

Correspondence

K – Correspondence

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Items 1-3 of Correspondence 1 .........................................


REPORT OF CORRESPONDENCE Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 K1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : ITEMS OF CORRESPONDENCE

BUSINESS PROGRAM : INFORMATION OF COUNCIL


FILE : 200/09

1. THE HON. FRANK SARTOR MP, MINISTER FOR PLANNING, wrote to advise that

the NSW Planning reforms have been passed through Parliament. This is the first crucial step in delivering a better and more efficient planning system for NSW, he wrote.

As part of the ongoing implementation, the Government has established an

Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC) under section 22 of the EP&A Act to provide advice on the development of subordinate legislation, guidelines and other related matters. The Local Government and Shires Association and Local Government General Managers Association were invited to join the group.

As with any new legislation, various elements of the new legislation will be

proclaimed over the coming months once the more detailed subordinate components are finalised. The Department of Planning will keep Council informed of the implementation program and staging in due course.

Mr. Sartor would like to thank Council for its valuable input into the reforms so far

and seeks assistance in the ongoing implementation of these important reforms. 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF NSW – Letter from the President Cr.

Genia McCaffery advising that the Association has kept increases to member subscriptions in line with the annual rate pegging limits approved by the Government. Unfortunately, the Association (and the Local Government Association), have this year been unable to continue this trend. Both Associations have resolved to increase subscriptions this coming financial year by the rate pegging limit of 3.2% plus 5%.

Prior to this decision being reached, the Associations’ Treasurers and Secretary General conducted an extensive budget review. Whilst its financial position is sound, the simple fact is that expenses are increasing greater than the rate pegging limit, and there is little opportunity to reduce expenses other than through cutting staff. The Treasurers found that this could not be achieved without reducing services to our members. In addition, the demands on the Associations and staff are now greater than they have ever been and no change in this regard is seen in the near future. Changes to planning laws and the present inquiry into Country water utilities are but two of the issues the Association is currently dealing with from a policy perspective. It is now faced with a major inquiry by IPART into Council revenues and the role of Local Government in delivering services to the community.



In addition, the need to fight the proposals contained in the draft IPART State Tax Review which recommends that the cost of running the NSW Fire Brigades and the Rural Fire Services be met by Local Government and that Local Government’s exemptions from payroll tax be removed. Amongst other things, the issue of constitutional recognition will become a major issue over the next 12 months–2 years, given the Rudd Government’s commitment to a constitutional referendum on the matter. The recommendations of the Rural and Regional Taskforce initiated by Richard Torbay MP will be vigorously pursued and the need to continue the fight against the outrageous election costs which the Government is trying to impose on Local Government. In all these circumstances, the Association has had little option but to increase membership fees this year.

3. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION OF NSW & SHIRES ASSOCIATION OF

NSW advise that the LGSA is looking to establish a monitoring system to evaluate the impacts of the new planning laws on councils and their communities and to provide Local Government input into the implementation of the laws.

Key to the monitoring program will be the establishment by the LGSA of a

Reference Group of Councils to provide qualitative and quantitative information on the impacts (both positive and negative). In particular, the LGSA will be looking at how the new laws impact on councils’ costs, the complexity of business processes, corruption risks, the environment and the community. Council feedback on the draft regulations, codes and guidelines which are currently being developed and will underpin many of the changes to the planning laws, are being sought.

It is proposed the Reference Group comprise a limited but representative number of

councils selected on the basis of Location – rural, regional, inner metropolitan, outer metropolitan, population size and geographic spread across NSW.

It is intended that a common reporting framework will be used across all councils to

enable data and information to be collected. Where possible, existing reporting mechanisms will be used. The details of the reporting framework will be developed in conjunction with those councils selected to be part of the Reference Group.

If Council wishes to become part of the Reference Group, it will need to submit an

expression of interest. When the laws were passed, the Associations gave an undertaking to NSW communities that they would hold the Government accountable. Council feedback on the new planning laws are critical in assisting the LGSA to monitor the impacts and lobby for any necessary changes.

The Associations would like to thank Council for its help and support throughout the

‘Keep It Local’ campaign. Although the laws have been passed, with assistance from councils, the

Associations forced the Government into some concessions, including making private certifiers more accountable, trialing the cookie cutter housing codes, and reinstating council rights to use levies to fund regional facilities. Without this help, these laws and the debate surrounding them would have played out very differently.



FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact as a result of consideration of this report. RECOMMENDATION That the report be received and noted.

M

General Business

M – General Business

4252 – 28 July 2008

Index 1. Meetings – Various Committees of Council 1 .........................................


REPORT OF GENERAL BUSINESS Meeting 4252 – 28 July 2008 M1


ITEM NO : 1

SUBJECT : MEETINGS - VARIOUS COMMITTEES OF COUNCIL



FILE : 205/01

PURPOSE DATE TIME LOCATION

Event Committee 22.07.08 6.00pm Small Hall

Access Advisory Committee 24.07.08 12.30pm Council Chamber

Gladesville Road Community Centre Management Committee

31.07.08 2.45pm 44 Gladesville Road

Senior Support Group 04.08.08 10.00am 44 Gladesville Road

Playground Working Party 06.08.08 7.30pm Council Chamber

Young in Art Working Party 07.08.08 3.30pm Council Chamber

Ordinary Meeting of Council No. 4253 11.08.08 7.30pm Council Chamber

Public Transport & Traffic Advisory Committee 19.08.08 6.30pm Council Chamber

Conservation Advisory Panel 20.08.08 5.30pm Council Chamber

Sustainability & Biodiversity Advisory Committee 03.09.08 6.00pm Small Hall

Hunters Hill – Le Vesinet Friendship Committee 03.09.08 7.30pm Council Chamber

School Principals Liaison Committee 10.09.08 12.30pm Small Hall

Children’s Services Committee 21.10.08 12.30pm Council Chamber

Gladesville Joint Library Advisory Committee 29.10.08 5.30pm Gladesville Library

Finance Working Party TBA 5.00pm ¾ Hall

Art & Craft Advisory Committee TBA 5.30pm Council Chamber

Hunters Hill Local Traffic Advisory Committee TBA 9.30am Council Chamber

Woolwich Village Working Party TBA 5.00pm Small Hall

Local Place Names Committee TBA 9.30am Council Chamber Note: Details relating to Working Parties will be included as the meetings are arranged.



ordinary meeting no. 4252 - hunter's hill council · 4252 – 28 july 2008 index a –...

Documents